PDA

View Full Version : Judge Rules that NLRB can't force Businesses to go Union



Janice
04-16-2012, 01:49 AM
http://i.imgur.com/oFqv9.jpg

In lawsuit filed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, judge rules that NLRB can't force private businesses to post union notices

A Charleston judge has ruled that the National Labor Relations Board cannot force private businesses to post notices informing workers about their rights to join or form a union.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge David C. Norton said Friday that the requirement exceeds the federal agency's powers, writing, “There is not a single trace of statutory text that indicates Congress intended for the board to proactively regulate employers in this manner.” >>>

Norton's decision does not mean the issue has been put to rest. In a separate but similar lawsuit, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., found that the NLRB does have the power to require the union notices.

“The notice-posting rule is a reasonable means of promoting awareness,” she wrote.

An appeal will likely be required to resolve the differing legal opinions.

Lawyers from both sides told The New York Times they are reviewing Norton's decision to see whether it applies only to employers in South Carolina or across the country. >>>

Norton noted in his 31-page ruling Friday that for the 77 years since the National Labor Relations Act was passed, the NLRB “has been nearly unique among federal labor agencies in not requiring employers to post a general notice of employee rights in the workplace.” He went on to say that in that late 2010, the board “changed course” and proposed the new regulation. >>>

Business groups and right-leaning lawmakers have argued that the NLRB has taken a pro-union stance since President Barack Obama took office more than three years ago.

“Perhaps the Board should have heeded the admonition of Simon and Garfunkel: ‘And no one dared / disturb the sound of silence,'” Norton wrote, referring to the duo's 1966 hit “Sound of Silence.”

The Post and Courier (http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120415/PC16/120419497/1165)

----------------------------------------------------

Has no one alerted the 0bama Regime to the insurrection exerted by this court?

ralph wiggum
04-16-2012, 02:31 AM
These sort of rulings make me a bit more optimistic about striking down Obamacare.

m00
04-16-2012, 03:15 AM
Yeah, I was following the Affordable Care Act case in the supreme court. So, here's a question. If it gets struck down or gutted by SCOTUS, what does that do to the Republican campaign? Because it seems like "overturning Obamacare" has been a major issue, and based on my observation of the campaign trail, the most cited reason for voting Republican.

Of course, Obama gave people another reason to vote against him with the Russian quip.

Odysseus
04-16-2012, 07:29 AM
Yeah, I was following the Affordable Care Act case in the supreme court. So, here's a question. If it gets struck down or gutted by SCOTUS, what does that do to the Republican campaign? Because it seems like "overturning Obamacare" has been a major issue, and based on my observation of the campaign trail, the most cited reason for voting Republican.

Of course, Obama gave people another reason to vote against him with the Russian quip.

It still works out in our favor. The gutting of Obamacare leaves many of the worst parts intact, such as the IPAB, but without the mandate, there's no enforcement mechanism for the insurance part, so it becomes even more unworkable and in need of repeal. If they blow the whole thing out of the water, it hurts Obama tremendously. After all, he had two signature pieces of legislation, a stimulus that didn't stimulate, and a health care reform that didn't reform. He still can't run on his record, and his campaign will consist solely of demagoguery and over the top attacks that aren't convincing anyone except the true believers.

Arroyo_Doble
04-16-2012, 10:49 AM
Yeah, I was following the Affordable Care Act case in the supreme court. So, here's a question. If it gets struck down or gutted by SCOTUS, what does that do to the Republican campaign? Because it seems like "overturning Obamacare" has been a major issue, and based on my observation of the campaign trail, the most cited reason for voting Republican.

Of course, Obama gave people another reason to vote against him with the Russian quip.

Regardless of how they rule, Republicans can never again use the phrase "judicial activism" without causing a great deal of laughter.

txradioguy
04-16-2012, 12:45 PM
Regardless of how they rule, Republicans can never again use the phrase "judicial activism" without causing a great deal of laughter.

That's because to echo chamber Libs like you "Judicial Activism" means judges who follow the Constitution.

DumbAss Tanker
04-16-2012, 01:54 PM
Regardless of how they rule, Republicans can never again use the phrase "judicial activism" without causing a great deal of laughter.

TRG's right, you don't seem to understand what the 'Judicial activism' Conservatives despise actually is.

Here's a hint: Putting the brakes on an administrative agency that is doing something about which its authorizing statute makes no mention is not it. It has to do with judge's usurping the authority of Congress and the Executive branch by making up whole new sets of rules in court to do what the judge thinks the law OUGHT to have done and dictating his or her own framework on how it will be implemented, all outside the representational legislative process in the case of laws, and outside the administrative due process requirements of public notice and comment with respect to administrative agency proceedings and regulations.

Odysseus
04-16-2012, 03:00 PM
Welcome to Talking Point Theater. Today's guest, Arroyo, will now present the Democratic talking point for our edification and discussion:


Regardless of how they rule, Republicans can never again use the phrase "judicial activism" without causing a great deal of laughter.

The liberal definition of judicial activism and the conservative definition are wildly different. To a conservative, judicial activism is when judges, in their legitimate role as reviewers of the law, substitute their own preferences for the law, or make up new laws, thus usurping the legislative powers of congress. The classic example of this is the Weber case, which Thomas Sowell summarized brilliantly:


A specific and real case may illustrate concretely the distinction between seeking the cognitive meaning of instructions and going beyond cognitive meaning to extrinsic considerations. The Weber case49 provides such an illustration. Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for an employer "to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race" or various other characteristics. Section 703(d) more specifically forbade such discrimination in "any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training." A white employee, Brian F. Weber, was denied admission to a training program where places were awarded on the basis of seniority, even though black employees with less seniority were admitted, because racially separate seniority lists were used and racial quotas were established. That this was counter to the plain cognitive meaning of the Act was not explicitly denied in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan. But Justice Brennan rejected "a literal interpretation" of the Civil Rights Act, preferring instead to seek the "spirit" of the Act in Congress' "primary concern" for "the plight of the Negro in our economy."50 In short, he went behind the cognitive meaning of the law's provisions to the presumed purposes and values motivating the enactment of the law. Because that presumed purpose was not to protect whites from racial discrimination, the Act was deemed not to protect Brian F. Weber, who lost the case. The emergence of this decision from the clear language of the Act to the contrary was likened to the great escapes of Houdini, in the dissenting opinion of Justice William H. Rehnquist.51

The Weber case illustrates the difference between seeking intrinsic cognitive meaning and going beyond that meaning to extrinsic considerations because (1) there was no serious question as to the cognitive meaning of the words, so that (2) the kinds of interpretive steps suggested by Holmes and Blackstone, among others, were unnecessary for the purpose of advancing toward the cognitive meaning-- and were, on the contrary, used to advance beyond cognitive meanings, in the manner suggested by Ronald Dworkin.





The law banned preferences, but the judges wanted to permit them, so the law was "interpreted" to mean something that it clearly didn't mean, and thus rewritten. To put it another way, the language of the act was contrary to the desires of the judges, so the judges simply decided that the act meant something that it obviously didn't, in order to impose their preferences on the plaintiff. However, the same language that the law applied also appeared in the 14th Amendment, and so the court decided that the Amendment's "true" meaning lay, not with the text, but in their interpretation of it, even if that interpretation willfully violated the text.

OTOH, the left defines judicial activism simply by numerical criteria, as in the number of decisions that involve overturning a law, regardless of whether the laws are Constitutional or not. Thus, when the SCOTUS decided in United States v. Lopez that the Interstate Commerce Claus did not give congress the authority to regulate the possession of a firearm within a certain distance from a school within the states, it was decried by leftists as judicial activism, even though the language of the clause clearly and unambiguously that congress only has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" The obvious meaning of the text is that the states, which were seen as sovereign entities, would delegate the regulation of their commerce with other states to the congress, just as congress would regulate their commerce with foreign nations and Indian tribes, all of which were also sovereign entities. Clearly, the latter decision follows the Constitution in overturning the law, while the former decision inverts its meaning in order to create a new law, one that was not passed by any legislative process.

Now that this has been explained to you, Arroyo, I hope that you will understand why this talking point cannot be used again, without causing a great deal of laughter.

Rockntractor
04-16-2012, 03:11 PM
Yeah, I was following the Affordable Care Act case in the supreme court. So, here's a question. If it gets struck down or gutted by SCOTUS, what does that do to the Republican campaign? Because it seems like "overturning Obamacare" has been a major issue, and based on my observation of the campaign trail, the most cited reason for voting Republican.

Of course, Obama gave people another reason to vote against him with the Russian quip.

Yeah and so is a common way of starting a post at DU, is that where you got in the habit?

Bailey
04-16-2012, 03:20 PM
Regardless of how they rule, Republicans can never again use the phrase "judicial activism" without causing a great deal of laughter.

Again judicial activism is when you make whole new laws out of nothing i.e. (abortion) rather then striking down un constitutional laws. Get it right troll.

m00
04-16-2012, 04:25 PM
Yeah and so is a common way of starting a post at DU, is that where you got in the habit?

You just started a sentence with 'Yeah,' so what's your DU name? I always felt you were a bit too outrageous to be a real conservative. How long have you been mole-ing for Skinner?

Zathras
04-16-2012, 07:00 PM
Yeah, I was following the Affordable Care Act case in the supreme court. So, here's a question. If it gets struck down or gutted by SCOTUS, what does that do to the Republican campaign? Because it seems like "overturning Obamacare" has been a major issue, and based on my observation of the campaign trail, the most cited reason for voting Republican.

It doesn't do anything because they can change their message from overturning Obamacare to a President that is willing to violate the Constitution to get what he wants.


Of course, Obama gave people another reason to vote against him with the Russian quip.

That and many, many other things.