Tag: SCOTUS

Headed Down The Wrong Path

My readers know I have little faith in the Supreme Court….personally I think most are nothing but party ideologues and political hacks…..I have thought for a decade that the Court was on a terrible path….and now a retired justice thinks the same thing…

Stephen Breyer has a book coming out Tuesday, and between that and a new interview with the New York Times, the retired Supreme Court justice has a lot to say, about everything from abortion and the concept of originalism to the high court bench’s current makeup.

  • Abortion: In his upcoming book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, Breyer devotes many pages to the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, which in June 2022 held that abortion wasn’t a right under the US Constitution. He now tells the Times there are “too many questions” around the topic. “Are they really going to allow women to die on the table because they won’t allow an abortion, which would save her life?” he notes. “I mean, really, no one would do that. … And there’ll be dozens of questions like that.”
  • Current justices: Breyer appears to poke at Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. “Several new justices have spent only two or three years at the court,” he tells the Times. “Major changes take time, and there are many years left for the newly appointed justices to decide whether they want to build the law using only textualism and originalism” (textualism focuses on case semantics, while originalism looks at a case the way the Founding Fathers would have).
  • Past colleagues: “Sandra, David … I would see eye to eye not necessarily in the result in every case, but just the way you approach it. And Tony, too, to a considerable degree,” Breyer says, referring to former conservative justices Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy.
  • Two cases: Breyer mentions Dobbs and a big gun-rights case out of New York in his book as two examples of originalism and textualism run amok, per the Washington Post. “Originalism says that judges cannot consider … modern developments and practical realities,” he notes.
  • A warning: Breyer is also now “[sounding] an alarm” on the current court’s direction, per the Times. “Something important is going on,” he tells the paper, which notes he thinks the court has taken a “wrong turn”—though he also thinks there’s still time to remedy that.

Little by little we are losing our rights….and at this rate there are not many left to lose.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS And Social Media

Those political hacks that we call the Supreme Court are about to lay into the Constitution to settle a ‘First Amendment’ issue….

Supreme Court justices sounded hesitant Monday to dismiss First Amendment concerns about state laws that would restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate users’ posts. The court spent four hours hearing oral arguments about laws passed in Florida and Texas that are blocked for now, the New York Times reports. Both laws were approved by Republican-controlled legislatures, a response to complaints from the political right that the companies were censoring comments from its supporters while allowing posts expressing other viewpoints. The court’s decisions could have broad implications for the future of online debate.

A series of issues involved includes censorship and whether to treat social media like a phone company that transmits users’ content and can’t block any of it at will, or like a newspaper, which can decide what opinions it will run. The Florida law is the more sweeping, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it could keep the online marketplace Etsy from curating items being sold by its users, per CNN. “This is so, so broad, it’s covering almost everything” on the internet, Sotomayor said. President Biden’s administration agrees with the technology companies that say the platforms have the right to moderate content; Donald Trump’s lawyers filed a brief calling on the court to uphold Florida’s law.

In musing about censorship, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh brought up George Orwell, per MSNBC. Alito expressed concern about “Orwellian” private conduct, while Kavanaugh said he thinks of government control of media, not private control, as being “Orwellian.” Alito expressed dislike of the term “content moderation,” per the AP. “Is it anything more than a euphemism for censorship?” Alito asked. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought up whether the platforms are a public square or a private company. A ruling should be issued by summer.

So are these sites public or private?

It will be interesting to see what the “Hacks” will do.

On a separate issue….is honking one’s horn protected under free speech?

If you’re tempted to honk your car horn in support of protesters, you might want to think twice in California. That’s because on Friday, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling against Susan Porter, deciding that honking one’s horn isn’t free speech. The case saw its origins in October 2017, when Porter repeatedly leaned on her car horn in solidarity with protesters she was driving past outside of GOP Rep. Darrell Issa’s office in Vista, who were demonstrating against Issa’s support of then-President Trump, per the Washington Post.

Porter honked her horn a total of 14 times, in short bursts, as she cruised by the demonstrators—and was subsequently pulled over by a San Diego County sheriff’s deputy, who gave her a ticket and cited her for misusing her car horn. The citation came about because Porter was said to have violated a 1913 law that prohibits anyone from using the horn for anything other than warning other drivers, per Courthouse News. Although that citation was dismissed the following February when the deputy didn’t show in court, Porter brought a lawsuit, claiming her First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights had been violated.

Porter noted that honking wasn’t just for political speech, but also for celebrating good news, greeting people, or alerting someone that you’d arrived to pick them up. The lower court’s decision against her, however, was handed down in February 2021, which the appeals court upheld last week. “[For] the horn to serve its intended purpose as a warning device, it must not be used indiscriminately,” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the majority, per the Post. Friedland added that there were other ways to show support for protesters, including waves, giving a thumbs-up, and bumper stickers. Dissenting Judge Marsha Berzon disagreed, noting, per the Metropolitan News-Enterprise: “Honking at a political protest is a core form of expressive conduct that merits the most stringent constitutional protection.”

SCOTUS refuses to tackle this one….

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on whether honking a car horn is protected free speech, leaving in place a lower court’s ruling upholding a California law that bans excessive honking. Lawyers for Susan Porter, who was ticketed in 2017 after honking in support of anti-Donald Trump protesters outside the office of GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, said they were disappointed and they hope the issue will be revisited in future cases, the Hill reports. “We continue to believe that sounding the vehicle horn to support a protest or engage in personal expression is a core First Amendment right,” said David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition,” calling such honking a “longstanding tradition.”

And their term will continue….

I wait and watch.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–19Dec23

I love whiners….like Justice Thomas of SCOTUS….it seems he does not think the judges are paid enough….

ProPublica’s deep dive into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial dealings continued on Monday with a new report that describes Thomas as under financial strain in early 2000 “just as he was developing his relationships with a set of wealthy benefactors.” It cites interviews and documents in describing the conversation that allegedly took place in January 2000 as Thomas returned home from a high-end Georgia beach resort where he gave the keynote at a conservative conference.

Friends tell the site Thomas had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to purchase an RV the month prior. He sat beside GOP Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns on the flight home and allegedly discussed his frustration with his $173,600 salary—more than $300,000 in today’s dollars—saying Congress should raise the justices’ pay. If they failed to, Thomas predicted one or more justices would leave within a year or so. As ProPublica puts it, “the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign” and subsequently sent Thomas a letter vowing to look into a bill that would raise Supreme Court salaries. ProPublica has a copy of the letter, and reports Stearns did undertake an effort to raise the issue.

ProPublica reports that in other conversations around the time, Thomas discussed killing the ban on justices giving paid speeches. There was no substantial raise or end to the ban, but ProPublica says the conversations give context to what it has previously reported came next: “Thomas accept[ing] a stream of gifts from friends and acquaintances that appears to be unparalleled in the modern history of the Supreme Court,” though it notes there is “no evidence the justice ever raised the specter of resigning with [those] wealthy benefactors.”

What a whiny titty baby!

He has been sucking at the taxpayers teat for 30 years….and in all that time he has been finding his supplemental pay in  plain brown envelopes from his wealthy patrons.

Move on if you are not happy with your pay….we can do better.

He also said a couple others would leave….I say let the corrupt political hack bastards move on.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The SCOTUS Clown Show

We have yet another clown show in DC….we have the Congress and the parties and now more from SCOTUS.

Just like the rest of the government SCOTUS has become a sh*t show….with all the corruption and favoritism in the court there has been calls for some sort of reform and the judges decided they would clean their chamber up…..which is as hilarious as it could possibly get.

The Supreme Court released a code of conduct for justices Monday to address what it described as a “misunderstanding” about ethics. A statement signed by all nine justices said that the rules and principle are not new, “for the most part,” because the court “has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules.” “The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” the statement said. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

The code, released amid pressure from Democrats to reform court ethics, contains what the Washington Post describes as “broadly worded” sections on issues including fundraising, political activity, and financial activities including the acceptance of gifts. It does not, however, include any means of enforcement, with compliance left entirely up to the justices themselves, the AP reports. A poll last month found that public confidence in the court was close to an all-time low following multiple reports on ethical issues. Many reports looked at Justice Clarence Thomas’ undisclosed gifts from wealthy donors, but questions were also raised about Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor, the AP notes.

“The justices are clearly reacting to recent public criticism by formally adopting this code,” says CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck. “But the key is what’s missing: how are these rules going to be enforced, and by whom? Even the most rigorous ethical and financial reporting requirements won’t mean very much if there’s no one monitoring the justices’ compliance and no pushback when those rules are violated.” The Post notes that a commentary released with the code suggests the court is still trying to resolve some issues. It states that Chief Justice John Roberts has asked court officers “to undertake an examination of best practices, drawing in part on the experience of other federal and state courts.”

Seriously?

No way to enforce the “Code”….I expect these political hacks to try and head off criticism…..but this is just a cruel joke.

Do we really believe that these crooked hacks will abide by the code and police themselves?

Not in my wheelhouse.

Nice try you garden slugs….now try doing something for the country and resign go home to waste away and let the country move on.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Reforms For SCOTUS

With all the bad press around the court these days….like corruption and disregard for rights many, including myself, have called for some sort of reform for the Court.

The call for these reforms have gotten louder in recent months….

The Dems have offered up a bill for a code of ethics for the Court….in my opinion a lame wristed attempt but at least they are trying…..but as usual anything attempt at reform will be met with a stone wall of Repubs…

A Democratic proposal to require the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code for itself passed a Senate committee on Thursday but appears to have little future in the rest of Congress. The bill can’t clear the full Senate or House without Republican support, and GOP lawmakers have said they won’t back it, CBS News reports. The committee vote was along party lines, 11-10. The Democrats’ effort picked up steam after news coverage about Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting but not reporting gifts from Republican donors. The idea of an ethics code has been around but has never gone anywhere with the court.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, a Democrat, said he suggested it to Chief Justice John Roberts 11 years ago. “Unfortunately, he did not accept my suggestion,” Durbin said Thursday, per the Hill. “Since then as more and more stories have emerged of justices’ ethical lapses, the American people’s confidence in the Supreme Court has dropped to an all-time low.” Republicans said the proposal is retaliation for a series of rulings that Democrats have opposed. “This is a bill to destroy a conservative court,” GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said.

The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act also would create a transparent process for members of the public to submit ethics complaints against justices. A panel of chief judges from lower courts would make recommendations after complaints are received. Gifts, travel, and income received by the justices and their law clerks would be subject to disclosure rules comparable to those in the Senate and House. Lower court judges have had to follow a code of conduct since 1973, but it doesn’t apply to Supreme Court justices. “The highest court in the land has the lowest standards of ethics anywhere in the federal government,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the bill’s main sponsor, per the Washington Post.

Why would the GOP go along?

They have the nation by the short hairs….just where they always wanted to be.

This does not go far enough at all….we need term limits, mandatory retirement, as well as this code the Dems are calling for….but as usual we will be stuck with these crooked political hacks deciding what is law and what is not.

More years of this assault on the laws of this nation and there will be few to no rights left.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS, The Corrupt

I recent months word has been leaking out about all the shady deals the SCOTUS judges have been making to their benefit…..like Clarence Thomas….

An in-depth New York Timesstory examining Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas‘ membership in an exclusive club of wealthy Americans—and the benefits he has reaped from the association—sparked fresh calls for his resignation on Sunday, with watchdogs and lawmakers decrying the new report as further evidence of deep-seated corruption at the nation’s most powerful judicial body.

Months after his confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1991, according to the Times, Thomas was accepted into the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, a group named after the Gilded Age American author Horatio Alger.

“At Horatio Alger, he moved into the inner circle, a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him and all that he had achieved,” the newspaper reported. “While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light. He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members.”

The new reporting comes on the heels of a series of revelations from the investigative outlet ProPublica, which uncovered decades of trips Thomas took on the dime of billionaire Harlan Crow, who is deeply enmeshed in right-wing politics.

ProPublica also found a previously undisclosed real estate deal between Crow and Thomas, who just recently joined his fellow conservative justices in ruling against affirmative action and student debt relief for more than 40 million Americans.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/clarence-thomas-gifts

Thomas and his wife are not alone….Alito has been caught as well as others….

All this corruption leads one to ask….if this is the case do we really need the Supreme Court?

I mean these judges are proving that they do not think democracy is a good thing….why keep it around?

Vested interests create “checks and balances” primarily to make political systems non-responsive to demands for social reform. Historically, therefore, the checks are politically unbalanced in practice. Instead of producing a happy medium, their effect often has been to check the power of the people to assert their interests at the expense of the more powerful. Real reform requires a revolution – often repeated attempts. The Roman Republic suffered five centuries of fighting to redistribute land and cancel debts, all of which failed as the oligarchy’s “checks” imposed deepening economic dependency and imbalance.

The Supreme Court is America’s most distinctive check. Its deepening bias since its takeover by “conservatives” claiming to be “originalist” interpreters of the constitution, has led to the most widespread protests since Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the court in the 1930s by expanding its membership to create a more democratic majority. Although appointed by presidents and consented to by Congress, the judges’ lifetime tenure imposes the ideology of past elections on the present.

So why are they needed at all? Why not permit Congress to make laws that reflect the needs of the time? The Court’s judges themselves have pointed out that if Congress doesn’t like their rulings, it should pass its own laws, or even a constitutional amendment, to provide a new point of reference.

Should There be a Supreme Court? Its Role Has Always Been Anti-Democratic

Then I agree get rid of it….if greed and personal gain is all they are there for why do we need them…..let them go to Wall Street and steal America’s future .

What say you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

No Affirmative Action

This session of SCOTUS has seen the ‘end’ to affirmative action….to some it is a good thing and to others it reeks of racism….just depends on where one stands in the political landscape…

It appears the most of America agrees with the court on this issue…..

The majority of Americans approve of the recent Supreme Court decision gutting affirmative action, according to a new ABC News poll. Just 32% disapprove of the ruling, which restricts the use of race as a factor in college and university admissions, while another 16% said they don’t know whether they approve or disapprove. Among Republicans, 75% approve of the SCOTUS decision, but just 26% of Democrats approve. (Among independents, 58% approve.) And a higher percentage of white people (60%) and Asian people (58%) approve when compared to Black people (25%) and Hispanic people (40% approve and 40% disapprove). Other poll findings:

  • When asked if they believe Black and Hispanic students have a fair chance of being admitted to the higher education institution of their choice when compared to white and Asian students, however, just 47% of poll respondents believed Black students had a fair shot while 50% believed Hispanic students did. (Asked about white and Asian students’ chances, two-thirds of poll respondents believed they have a fair shot.)
  • When asked if they believe the country’s highest court makes rulings based on justices’ political beliefs or based on the law, 53% said partisan political beliefs while 33% said on the basis of law and 14% didn’t know.

See more from the poll here

When it comes to college affirmative action helped minorities get an education when privilege was the only decider…..now with the decision it may well go back to those dark days….but there is a way to head that beast off at the pass….

A civil rights group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni. It’s the latest effort in a growing push against legacy admissions, the practice of giving admissions priority to the children of alumni, per the AP. Backlash has been building in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision ending affirmative action in college admissions. Lawyers for Civil Rights, a nonprofit based in Boston, filed the civil rights complaint Monday on behalf of Black and Latino community groups in New England, alleging that Harvard’s admissions system violates the Civil Rights Act.

“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the group’s executive director. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.” Opponents say the practice is no longer defensible without affirmative action providing a counterbalance. The court’s ruling says colleges must ignore the race of applicants, activists point out, but schools can still give a boost to the children of alumni and donors.

A separate campaign is urging the alumni of 30 prestigious colleges to withhold donations until their schools end legacy admissions. That initiative, led by Ed Mobilizer, also targets Harvard and other Ivy League schools. President Biden suggested last week that universities should rethink the practice, saying legacy admissions “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to legacy admissions in light of the court’s decision, along with Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.

A sterling idea!

I say get rid of all preferential treatment….making it a level playing field….make the little turds compete for every spot.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Rot At SCOTUS

The recent events around the dealings of Justice Thomas and his closeness with some billionaire who seems to be paying the bills for Thomas.

I read a piece written by Bill Astore that sums up what is happening within our Supreme Court……a good piece and should be read…..

A big part of the American experiment is the idea we are a nation of laws as defined by the U.S. Constitution. The law is supposed to apply equally to all, and disinterested, impartial, justices are supposed to make rulings that are unaffected by money or race or religion or any other factor other than the law itself and what’s right and what isn’t.

That doesn’t describe today’s Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS).

Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted all kinds of undeclared gifts from a billionaire supporter, including tuition for his great-nephew at private boarding schools. Justice Neil Gorsuch profited from a real estate transaction with a rich law firm CEO with extensive business before the court. Apparently, SCOTUS polices itself here, and so far the SCOTUS cop on watch is asleep.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh gained his seat under a storm of controversy. I wrote in September 2018 that he should withdraw his name from consideration, based on the demeanor he showed at his Senate hearing, but of course he didn’t. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was specifically “saved” by President Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg; everyone knew she was a conservative Catholic opposed to abortion with a clear record of being pro-business to boot.

You’d think the #1 criterion for a SCOTUS justice would be unassailable integrity, but today it seems to be predictable partisan positions (both political parties are guilty here, though Republicans are more blatant). Allegiance to moneyed interests is a big plus. The latter point is why these justices see no problem with accepting “gifts,” otherwise known as bribes (for that is what they are, in plain speak).

https://bracingviews.substack.com/p/rot-at-the-supreme-court

Integrity in the court has left the building many years ago…..the rot within the court is all pervasive….the only for sure about the court is it is as corruptible as the rest of DC and our elected officials….the only difference is these political hacks have a lifetime to have their palms greased.

It is beyond time to make some much needed SCOTUS reforms…..like term limits, mandatory retirement and stop allowing political hacks on the highest court in the land.

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Update

The Supreme Court will be putting together their agenda and a couple of the issues that could make the docket….

The Supreme Court could change the way the internet is governed next month. It will hear two cases that will challenge Section 230. Section 230 is a part of the Communications Decency Act. This act determines the rules for regulating online speech. This hearing is the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with a case fighting the 1996 act. But if the plaintiffs win, they could change how the internet is operated and used. 

Both cases being tried in front of the supreme court involve using various social media platforms by terrorists. The court will decide if the owners of these social media platforms did enough to block terrorists from using their services to spread their message and recruit new members. The social media site, Youtube, is the main focus of this trial to see if they are protected under Section 230 for the algorithmic recommendation of content. 

The first case was filed by the parents of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris on November 2015. Her family believes that Youtube’s algorithms push ISIS videos into people’s scope by recommending them in the suggested videos section of their platform. It is well known that many terrorist groups, including ISIS, use YouTube to recruit members to their organization from the western world. 

One Supreme Court Ruling Could Change The Internet Entirely

The next update is one that seems to be in every agenda….something religious….

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could give religious conservatives an unprecedented new ability to dictate how their workplaces operate, and which workplace rules they will refuse to follow.

Yet Groff is also likely to overrule a previous Supreme Court decision that treated the interests of religious employees far more dismissively than federal law suggests that these workers should be treated.

The case, in other words, presents genuinely tricky questions about the limits of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs. But those questions will be resolved by a Supreme Court that has shown an extraordinary willingness to bend the law in ways that benefit Christian-identified conservatives.

That could lead to a scenario in which the Court announces a new legal rule that disrupts the workplace — and that potentially places far too many burdens on non-religious employees.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23559038/supreme-court-groff-dejoy-religion-twa-hardison-workplace

I have doubt that these paleo-conserv judges will do the wrong thing.

Finally remember that famous leak of a draft of the ruling on Rowe v Wade and the ensuing investigation into that leak?

Someone is likely breathing a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court said Thursday that it can’t figure out who leaked the bombshell draft opinion of the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “It is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico,” says the court’s unsigned report, per the Washington Post. “No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document.”

A separate report by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley notes that nearly 100 court staffers were interviewed and all presented the it-wasn’t-me defense, reports NBC News. The investigation into the unprecedented leak eight months ago is not over, but the tone of the two reports suggests little hope of a breakthrough. “Investigators continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending,” wrote Curley. “To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them.” Curley added that it’s unlikely anyone hacked the court’s computer system.

The country owes this person a debt of gratitude for the leak….it help show just how corrupt and uncaring these judicial slugs are towards the rights of the American people.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Vs Labor

This post may not be interesting to anyone but those that believe unions are a vital part of our country for without them America would not be the strong economy that it enjoys today.

Workers could lose the right to strike if SCOTUS plays their role….

The Supreme Court hears a labor dispute on Tuesday involving striking truck drivers who walked off the job to try to secure a better contract from their employer, a company that provides premixed concrete for construction projects. Yet, while Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a fairly unremarkable case, the stakes for unionized workers could be enormous.

Glacier Northwest, the employer behind this case, seeks to upend a more than 60-year-old rule protecting unions from lawsuits when workers exercise their federally protected right to strike.

It’s an audacious ask, and the case could potentially be decided more narrowly. But the two-thirds of the Court that was appointed by Republicans has shown extraordinary hostility toward unions in the past. So we can’t dismiss the risk that the Court hands down a maximalist decision that upends the balance of power between employers and labor unions.

The case hinges on a rule protecting workers’ right to strike, and laying out how companies can claim that this rule does not apply to a particular strike.

The Teamsters, the union in this case, allegedly timed a 2017 strike so that it would begin after some of Glacier Northwest’s mixing trucks were already filled with concrete, forcing the company’s non-union employees to race to dispose of this material before it hardened in the trucks. But the company was able to remove this wet concrete from the trucks before they were damaged, and there are a wealth of cases establishing that workers may strike even if doing so will cause some of their employer’s product to spoil.

In one case, for example, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — a kind of quasi-court that hears disputes between unions and employers — sided with milk truck drivers who struck, even though their strike risked spoiling the milk before it was delivered to customers. Another case, handed down by a federal appeals court, reached a similar conclusion regarding striking cheese workers.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/9/23541349/supreme-court-glacier-northwest-teamsters-unions-strike-concrete-garmon

Just another attempt to prevent workers from earning the wages they deserve.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”