THOMAS JEFFERSON ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE | Why SCOTUS Shying Away From Guns | Trump Looking To Stop Nationwide Injunctions
March 2, 2018
OVERDOSED ON CONFIDENCE
|The AP is reporting that PRESIDENT TRUMP is struggling with the ongoing headache of having individual federal judges block key components of his agenda. The administration wants the Supreme Court to reject the practice of nationwide injunctions which have time and time again put a stop to policies such as Trump’s travel ban and his crackdown on sanctuary cities. “Legal scholars have attributed the rise of these broad judicial orders to a corresponding increase in executive action. In 2014, Obama acted to protect immigrant parents of U.S. children after Congress failed to pass an immigration overhaul. Similarly, Trump unilaterally sought to impose travel restrictions on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries a week after taking office.” So does this trend indicate growing politicization of the judiciary, or is it democracy in action with courts providing the check on executive actions as afforded by the Constitution?
GOT EVERYTHING, I GOT EVERYTHING
|There’s no shortage of Supreme Court opinions today, with an op-ed-heavy edition of SCOTUSDaily coming at you live to take you into your weekends. Let’s kick things off with Lina M. Khan who writes in The New York Times that SCOTUS could give tech giants even more power than we knew possible. She worries that a ruling from justices this year could provide a shield for companies like Amazon and Google from antitrust laws and give them power “ripe for abuse.”
NO HELP THAT'S ALL ME, ALL ME FOR REAL
|“Public union bosses want that money for themselves. They want to dictate spending decisions to state and local governments, and collect compulsory union dues to perpetuate their political power and line their coffers. The Supreme Court can end this unconstitutional coercion. The only way unions will be hurt by this is if the workers they claim to represent reject them.” That’s Marc Thiessen in The Washington Post arguing for union workers to be free and independent to hold their own opinions and refuse to pay dues to unions.
THEY JUST WANNA TAKE MY MONEY
|In The Hill, Jenny Beth Martin is also writing about the big union case that was at the Supreme Court this week, and she notes that if THOMAS JEFFERSON knew about the case he would be rolling in his grave. The Founding Father once wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of funds for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Martin opines that unions similarly compel citizens to fun the propagation of opinions they disbelieve and so the Supreme Court should do away with the practice when it rules on Janus v. AFSCMElater this term.
I'M A SURVIVOR, I'M GONNA MAKE IT
|But maybe there’s a way for unions to survive a loss at SCOTUS this term. Samuel Estreicher argues in Bloomberg for an alternative strategy that would allow public sector unions to stay alive even if they lose Janus: they should allow those employees who don’t want to pay their fair share to give their money to a charity of their choosing.
PASSIVE WITH THE THINGS YOU SAY
|Lawrence Friedman argues in The Hill that although the Supreme Court has yet to come down with a clear, comprehensive position on the Second Amendment, now isn’t the right time for the court to do so. Because while the nation grapples with yet another mass shooting in a school, the justices aren’t in alignment on how a Constitutional question on guns leads to an answer that makes sense for the majority of Americans wanting to prevent another gun-related tragedy.