Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake";p="
Quote:
Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented.
|
http://effwa.org/main/article.php?ar...2069&number=56
Blink twice if you get it yet.  |
I'll try one last time. After this, I suppose I'll just have to assume you cannot read. "...(T)he court ruled that it
is not a violation of First Amendment for a state to bar a union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented."
That is precisely correct. The WEA argued it WAS a violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the State of Washington COULD NOT enact a law barring such a requirement. The Court found the state COULD (not must, but COULD) restrict such actions.
The Court did NOT rule that non-union workers' dues COULD NOT be used for political purposes without their consent. It ruled that IF a state enacted such a law, the law would not violate the First Amendment.
The Court did NOT rule on the "opt-in vs opt-out" issue. Presumably either approach is constitutional according to the Court. It is also constitutional for a state to NOT HAVE a law governing this issue. (Forty-nine states have no such law.) In the case of Washington, the state legislature recently changed the law to allow the "opt out" option. This, too, is constitutional according to the Court's decisison.
I'm not sure how many other ways this can be explained to you. The Court did NOT rule directly on the issue you are so concerned about. Its decision was about the First Amendment's extension to public employee unions. It did not cover unions that bargain with private employers. It did not cover union members; it covered non-members. It did not say that non-members of public employee unions must "opt in" in order to have their agency fees used for political purposes; it said that states may pass legislation requiring such a procedure without violating the First Amendment.
If you cannot understand that the Court did not rule as you believe it did, I suppose I'll just leave it to you to discover that the ruling had absolutely no effect on the California unions you're concerned about. Perhaps then you'll understand.
P.S. Had Proposition 75 in California passed in 2005, according to this SC decision, it would not have violated the First Amendment. However, as repeatedly pointed out to you, Proposition 75 did not pass. Take it up with California voters.