And in a truly mind-warping development, the most progressive part of the population spent half the night pearl-clutching about how chivalry is dead and there is a husband on the planet who dared to not protect (sic!) his able-bodied, fully conscious wife from a drizzle.
With enemies like these, who needs friends?
Meanwhile:
Supreme Court Hears Fiery Arguments In Case That Could Gut Public Sector Unions
The Supreme Court heard fiery arguments Monday in a case that could remove a key revenue stream for public sector unions.
A sharply divided court could be poised to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision that would further undermine an already shrinking union movement.
Attorneys for Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the state of Illinois, argue that people like Janus, who choose not to join a union, shouldn’t be compelled to pay partial union fees. The union argues that he should because he benefits from collective bargaining negotiations. The Supreme Court agreed in 1977, but that could change with the new conservative tilt of the court….
…The court is revisiting a long-standing ruling that until now has stood as a compromise between union and nonunion workers at unionized workplaces.
In 1977, the Supreme Court declared that when public employees vote to affiliate with a union, state and local governments can require those who don’t join the union to pay partial fees to help cover the costs of negotiating and administering the contract that the nonunion employees benefit from too.
US Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained without bail
The US Supreme Court has ruled that immigrants held in long-term detention do not have the right to periodic hearings to argue their release.
The 5-3 verdict overturns a 2015 appeals court ruling that said detained immigrants awaiting deportation must have a bond hearing every six months.
The high court’s five conservatives were in the majority in the ruling.
The decision applies to any immigrant, including those with legal permanent status or who are seeking asylum.
The case will now go back to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to consider whether the US Constitution requires bond hearings for detained immigrants.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment