Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1 Judge Rules that NLRB can't force Businesses to go Union 
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    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

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

    Has no one alerted the 0bama Regime to the insurrection exerted by this court?
    Last edited by Janice; 04-16-2012 at 01:52 AM.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Festivus Moderator ralph wiggum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Springfield, USA
    Posts
    16,878
    These sort of rulings make me a bit more optimistic about striking down Obamacare.
    Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Welcome to Talking Point Theater. Today's guest, Arroyo, will now present the Democratic talking point for our edification and discussion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,449
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    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?
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •