This is very, very bad and an example of the consequence of a SCOTUS without Justice Scalia. When they tie, the case before them stands. That’s what’s happened here when with Scalia we would have dealt a major blow to public employee unions scams and increased personal and workplace freedom. This is the first case decide without Justice Scalia.

This makes the importance of the next president even more clear, if it wasn’t already. Yet, some GOP elites still prefer Hillary despite knowing what’s at stake.

You may see headlines today from idiot liberals saying SCOTUS “sided” with unions, but that’s not true. This can be revisited with another case but we must have the right president nominate the right judge so we can reverse the damage liberal thugs are doign to this nation.

Btw, how would Obama’s nominee, Garland Merrick, do with a case like this? Check out: Garland rulings consistently side with labor unions.

Via Los Angeles Times.

The Supreme Court announced a tie vote today in what labor law experts had called a “life-or-death” case for public employee unions.

The split decision preserves a long-standing rule that requires about half of the nation’s teachers, transit workers and other public employees to pay a “fair share fee” to support their union.

The tie vote will come as a relief to union officials who feared the conservative court was on the brink of striking down the pro-union laws that authorized these fees.

But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the court without a majority to rule on the issue.

It’s also the strongest sign yet that the court’s conservatives cannot muster a majority to rule in their favor. At the oral argument in December, it looked as though the mandatory union dues would be struck down.

The justices, following their usual practice, issued a short statement saying they had affirmed the lower court ruling by a tie vote.

In this case, Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected the claim of an Orange County teacher who contended it violated her free-speech rights to be forced to support the union she opposed. The appeals court judges said they relied on a Supreme Court ruling from 1977 which had upheld laws that required public employees to help pay the cost of collective bargaining on the theory that all benefit to some degree.

However, employees who do not support their union do not have to pay dues to support the union’s political activity.


This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
1 Comment | Leave a comment
  1. Minnie says:

    Well this is bad news .Union participation should be totally voluntary & in this day they should mot exist at all . Frankly I find it also ridiculous that the Supreme Court appointments are for life and they stay on long past an age that they should be . Its ridiculous to think some of these people are of sound mind & clear thinking past age 70 yrs let alone have the stamina to do the work .

You must be logged in to post a comment.