Missing Scalia: 4-4 SCOTUS decision leaves mandatory union fees in place

The Supreme Court has ruled a 4-4 tie in that case about California teachers that challenged mandatory union fees.

The absence of one Justice on the Court has taken one toll.

A "tie" defaults back to lower court rulings.

If now deceased Justice Antonin Scalia had been involved in the Court's decision, he would have probably been in favor of over-turning the lower court's decision.

A victory for Unions this time.

But I think the case can be re-evaluated when a 9th Justice is either confirmed or recess appointed by the President.


Missing Scalia: 4-4 SCOTUS decision leaves mandatory union fees in place

A years-long process by California teachers to free themselves of the yoke of mandatory dues fees even when the teachers refused to join the unions came up one justice short at the Supreme Court. That justice, of course, was the late Antonin Scalia, who would have almost certainly chosen to affirm the First Amendment and property rights of the plaintiffs. Instead, a 4-4 split at the Supreme Court on Friedrichs v California Teachers Association has the impact of affirming the lower court ruling that kept the requirement to make those payments in place:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday split 4-4 on a conservative legal challenge to a vital source of funds for organized labor, affirming a lower-court ruling that allowed California to force non-union workers to pay fees to public-employee unions.

The court, shorthanded after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and evenly divided with four liberal and four conservative members, left intact a 1977 legal precedent that allowed such fees, which add up to millions of dollars a year for unions.

The Controversies Continue

a reply to: xuenchen

If Obama would select Judge Napolitano, then Republicans would schedule a vote in a heart beat...but Obama wants his gun-graber stooge in stead.

Four of my family are Cal teachers and were hoping this ruling would be up-held...but the Illuminati spoiled it.

4-4 ??? Let me know when 'they' get smart enough to bring it back down to 3-3 (we don't need no stinkin' tie-breaks).

And throw the bums out if they look partisan. They're supposed to be about the law ... and nothing more.

If they wait until after the election when both the White House and the Senate are in DNC hands the GOP are idiots. They need to deal now while they still have some power left.

a reply to: xuenchen

Interesting.
This really underlines how important it is, if you are a republican, to not cave in and accept an Obama nominee!


Edit: And vice versa of course.

I guess there were lots of issues in play here. Here's what I've been able to glean from a report based on the public arguments held before the Court in January.

Lower courts had ruled in the Union's favor because of the standing Supreme Court precedent of Abood from 1977. The Court's liberal members apparently argued that they should hold fast with stare decisis and not overturn standing precedents so easily. In some respects this makes sense because several cases were resolved over the years according to this precedent, and overturning Abood could nullify those decisions.

However, the Court's conservative members argued that some of the issues negotiated by the Teacher's Union are political in nature, and forcing all teachers to pay dues to the union was forcing some of them to support political positions that they were very strongly opposed to.

Though Scalia was known to typically support stare decisis, it was estimated, based on his statements, that in this case he may have sided with his fellow conservatives and ruled in favor of the teachers who were questioning the requirement that they pay union dues.

I will say that for the most part, I support private sector unions. They have their problems, but allowing private citizens to band together to improve their working conditions in the private sector is a natural part of the free market. In the end, the success or failure of a private sector union is dictated by the product consumer. If the product becomes too expensive, and no longer holds its value, the consumer is free to purchase another product that is free from the union's encumbrance. The unionized business, and the union itself, is penalized; possibly leading to its dissolution.

On the other hand, I don't support public sector unions. The product consumer has no influence on these organizations. Because the product is government services, there is not only no competing product, but the product itself is also mandatory. Furthermore, some of the benefits provided to government employees, as members of these protected unions, seem, to me, to be out of proportion to the private sector.

-dex

I've been saying, the Dems prefer the SCOTUS the way it is. The lower courts have been so packed with liberal activists that SCOTUS ties are statistically to their benefit now.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: xuenchen

Interesting.
This really underlines how important it is, if you are a republican, to not cave in and accept an Obama nominee!

Edit: And vice versa of course.

They could accept an Obama nominee, if the nominee is not an progressive activist hack.