Court Splits 4-4 on Key Union Case; Absent Scalia, Unions Will Continue Extracting Dues from California Teachers Who Object to Belonging to Union

The lower court found for the union, and it takes a majority to set aside that decision, so the decision will stand.

It could be that the court could revisit this later with a majority of conservatives, but that seems to be a more and more unlikely proposition.

The vacancy helped the liberals this time. The deadlocked vote came in a case that considered whether unions representing government employees can collect fees from workers who choose not to join. California teachers backed by a conservative group said being forced to pay union fees violated the free-speech rights of nonmembers who disagree with the union's policy positions.
The split vote left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the collection of "fair share" fees from nonmembers.
The result was an unlikely reprieve for organized labor. It had seemed virtually certain that the high court would rule 5-4 to overturn a system that's been in place nearly 40 years. But the court now is operating with only eight justices after the Feb. 13 death of Scalia, who had been expected to rule against the unions.

Would Obama's appointee Merrick Garland have voted with the liberals? Most likely, yes.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Justice Merrick Garland has a history of showing deference to federal labor regulators in reviewing unfair labor practice charges against employers. An analysis conducted by OnLabor found that Garland ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a top federal labor arbiter, in 18 of 22 appeals that appeared before his court. Garland granted the agency leeway in interpreting its regulatory approach and interpretation of its mission.
"Judge Garland wrote the majority opinion in 22 cases involving appeals of NLRB decisions. In all but four, Judge Garland upheld the entirety of the NLRB's decision finding that an employer had committed unfair labor practices," ONLabor said in a blog post. "This deference to the NLRB has had favorable consequences for labor and unions."

A pragmatic moderate centrist -- just like Obama, who's given to claiming lately that there's no difference between capitalism and communism.

Posted by: Ace at 06:07 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 I miss Scalia

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:08 PM (fizMZ)

2 RIP Scalia...

so the unions get to continue being parasites and buying politicians to keep fattening their wallets....

Posted by: sven10077 at March 29, 2016 06:09 PM (g8Hfr)

3 1
I miss Scalia

Such a loss, and at such a bad time.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:09 PM (Gl74b)

4 The only bright side, and its fairly dim, is that the ruling cannot be used to set precedent.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:10 PM (Gl74b)

5 Garland is no less Liberal than the Wise Latina.
More qualified, for certain, but every bit as progressive and liberal.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:10 PM (g48gT)

6 To be fair, most California teachers are retarded.

Posted by: wooga at March 29, 2016 06:10 PM (c8qt1)

7 and who the fuck names a kid Merrick?

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:11 PM (g48gT)

8 This is the reason somebody other than a Democrat needs to win. The Leftists run the country using only the courts, a solid majority would give them anything that hits the court.

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:11 PM (fizMZ)

9 Garland is a solid leftist, he would vote however Ruthy wants him.

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:13 PM (fizMZ)

10 Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:11 PM (g48gT)

My nice Jewish neighbor is named Merrick.

What? Of course he is a leftist. He's Jewish.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2016 06:14 PM (Zu3d9)

11 names a kid Merrick?

Elephant man <> GOPe

Posted by: DaveA at March 29, 2016 06:14 PM (DL2i+)

12 Would Obama's appointment vote with the leftist activists on the court?

The answer is that if he would not vote with the other leftists Obama would not have picked him.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 06:14 PM (MpvuV)

13 And so it begins...

Posted by: That guy who always says... at March 29, 2016 06:14 PM (Dwehj)

14 Merrick's one of those kinda-cool names that only rich people can have.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:14 PM (dciA+)

15 I saw firsthand how union's treated a member who asked a question regarding the pension fund. He was 57 and was given a job on the fence crew. He lasted a month and retired with 27 years. If he made it to 30 years he would have gotten 75% of his salary. They could have given him a flag job, but those were reserved for the children of union stewards.

Posted by: Hadoop at March 29, 2016 06:15 PM (2X7pN)

16 I'm Jewish and I'm hardly a leftist.

Posted by: SFGoth at March 29, 2016 06:15 PM (dZ756)

17 >>and who the fuck names a kid Merrick?

I know, right?

Posted by: Marion Morrison at March 29, 2016 06:15 PM (/tuJf)

18 Stare decisis for thee and not for me.

Posted by: Senate Democrats plus Sixteen Republicans at March 29, 2016 06:15 PM (/m8T6)

19 The Dems always vote with the Court in mind.

It looks like the other side will fail to do that in this election.

Reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: Lower Class person whose opinions need to be guided at March 29, 2016 06:16 PM (3ZttN)

20 well, actually, Freakonomics explained how names go through periods of fashionability. Rich people make them fashionable, then the middle class starts adopting them, and rich people move on to some other name (to differentiate themselves from the middle class). Then the lower classes start using the name, and the middle class abandons them too.

The "using a last name as a first name" is now sort of in its becoming-lower-class phase.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:16 PM (dciA+)

21 Free Beacon has a story that she is going to petition for a rehearing.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:16 PM (Gl74b)

22 It's too bad the conservatives couldn't get a majority in the Senate to keep the leftist fascists from nominating liberals to the courts.

That's what happens when you keep voting for the GOP.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:17 PM (fWLrt)

23 (About open Supreme Court position) Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Apparently, according to my seriously old and faded crystal ball, the American people are voting in favor of deadlock and indecision this year. Not sure, in the presidential race, who that favors.

Posted by: mega machines at March 29, 2016 06:18 PM (fbovC)

24 Shouldn't Scalia get one last freebie vote?
It's not like the Democrats object to dead voters.

Posted by: DaveA at March 29, 2016 06:18 PM (DL2i+)

25 I thought the elite thing to do was just use the letter of your first name, like F. Scott Fitzgerald

Posted by: Hadoop at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (2X7pN)

26 Not all Jewish people are leftists, maybe a majority but I know not all.

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (fizMZ)

27 Gawd I love my job...no friggin' unions.

Posted by: Diogenes at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (r65B3)

28 Dave A - To funny

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (fizMZ)

29 7 and who the fuck names a kid Merrick?

I am not an animal

Posted by: John Merrick at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (12kBq)

30 Okay fine, make the teachers pay the dues.... Then make it absolutely illegal for Unions to donate to any Candidate or party directly or indirectly....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (O2RFr)

31 Stare Decisis? The court dislikes overturning its own precedents. But, does a tie vote get treated like a precedent, or does the issue remain one that they will not feel constrained in overturning?

In other words, if Garland had been on the court, and a 5-4 decision came down affirming the lower court ruling, would that have been treated with more deference by a future court?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (R+30W)

32 The headline should say 4 Liberal SCOTUS judges approve of slavery.

Posted by: Kzintius at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (ZfKzG)

33 DaveA @24....
Spot on!!!!

Posted by: Diogenes at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (r65B3)

34 You petition for a rehearing when the court had not addressed an argument you made in your brief.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (iQIUe)

35 I am not ruling out the Obama looking for an opportunity to try a recess appointment sometime after the election, but before the inauguration of the new Prez, who ever that may be.

If for no other reason than his ego.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:21 PM (Gl74b)

36 By the way did I mention We're screwed

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:21 PM (O2RFr)

37 Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:16 PM (dciA+)

I just wish parents stop naming their kids with gender-ambiguous names. Such as "Hunter" or "Jordan". Ugh. Stop it.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (5p18q)

38 I still think someone should have named their kid Wakeusha.

Posted by: Walker at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (mcm0N)

39 Fight for 15!

Posted by: Average Union Member at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (M1Eq2)

40 This deference to the NLRB has had favorable consequences for labor and unions.

And here I thought judges were supposed to have deference to the law.

Posted by: before the penumbras at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (4RmVC)

41 You petition for a rehearing when the court had not addressed an argument you made in your brief.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang!
----------------------

Bernie made an argument in his brief today, but his caregiver cleaned him up and got him fresh clothes.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:23 PM (fWLrt)

42 I do not mourn this decision.

California Teachers ... as members of a Public Sector Union, State Employees, and California Residents ... get the government they not only deserve - but picked.

The travesty would have been Republicans swooping in again - via a 5-4 decision from justices appointed by Republicans - to save people who vote Democrat from the consequences of their own actions.

Because ... you know ... Republicans saving Democrats from their own stupidity has earned so much loyalty in the past.

Dumb asses. I hope the Teacher's Union responds by doubling dues.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:23 PM (fiGNd)

43 Hahaha...too funny!
Commifornia....where freedom went to die and Jerry Brown is your Governor.
Jerry Brown. Good God Almighty. Let that sink in.

Jerry F'n Brown is as crazy as a shithouse rat and he's their Governor.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at March 29, 2016 06:24 PM (ej1L0)

44 You want a name for a kid?

Seven.

Posted by: George Costanza at March 29, 2016 06:24 PM (g48gT)

45 Fuck unions. Public sector ones in particular.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at March 29, 2016 06:24 PM (7whxM)

46 45 Fuck unions.

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

Umm. Where does one sign up?

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:24 PM (fWLrt)

47 if danger girl is around --

I picked up two tranches of the taleggio cheese. I haven't tried it yet.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:25 PM (dciA+)

48 What bothered me about the way the MFM reported this decision was that it is actually a reversal of precedent. The court has to date ruled against unions and forced collection of dues. Now that Scalia is gone and with a pro-union 9th circuit the union wins by default.

Yes, Scalia will be missed which makes it even more imperative that the Scalawags in Congress do NOT give Ocrapweasel another pick.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:25 PM (vvmPQ)

49 37
I just wish parents stop naming their kids with gender-ambiguous names. Such as "Hunter" or "Jordan". Ugh. Stop it.
Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (5p18q)

Or "Madison" as a girl's name. Now, "Maddy" is a cute nickname, but you could also get that from "Madeline".

Posted by: rickl at March 29, 2016 06:25 PM (sdi6R)

50 Who the hell names their kid Bernie?

Posted by: ajmojo at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (1H9ox)

51 >>Fuck unions.

Fuck Confederates.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (g48gT)

52 Just the first salvo. We should be happy for any 4-4 decisions we happen to win for the rest of the year, because next year we will start a generation of a 5-4 liberal majority.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (kBIIG)

53 Who the hell names their kid Bernie?
Posted by: ajmojo at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (1H

Probably Bernard....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (O2RFr)

54 >>>I just wish parents stop naming their kids with gender-ambiguous names. Such as "Hunter" or "Jordan". Ugh. Stop it.

Hunter doesn't seem like a good name for a girl.

I mean, think of the nicknames.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (dciA+)

55 Ace, if I bump into Danger Girl on the blog, I will make a point of telling her. That will make her very happy and make her feel special that you went to the trouble. Did you like the cheese btw?

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (2x3L+)

56 Taleggio is good stuff. Andif you are going to use it for shredding, (pizza) throw it in the freezer for at least a half hour.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (g48gT)

57 53 Who the hell names their kid Bernie?
Posted by: ajmojo at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (1H

Probably Bernard....
----
Why the hell would Bernard name his kid Bernie?

Posted by: ajmojo at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (1H9ox)

58 haven't tried it yet, L'Elle.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (dciA+)

59 well, actually, Freakonomics explained how names go through periods of fashionability. Rich people make them fashionable, then the middle class starts adopting them, and rich people move on to some other name (to differentiate themselves from the middle class). Then the lower classes start using the name, and the middle class abandons them too.

Yeah, that's right.

You can thank my parents for your granddaughter's new name, you low class bitchez.

Posted by: Dickweed Zuckerberg at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (0cMkb)

60 57 53 Who the hell names their kid Bernie?
Posted by: ajmojo at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (1H

Probably Bernard....
----
Why the hell would Bernard name his kid Bernie?

Okay I laughed....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (O2RFr)

61 well the precedent set by the starri decides coincides with the original intent of the pragmatic approach to the living constitution.

The pieces are there, someone fix it so that I sound smart

Posted by: connor at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (mvhs2)

62 tranches of the taleggio cheese.

I did not know cheese came in tranches. Are the lower ones runnier, cheaper? You know what happens if you hide cheese.

Posted by: DaveA at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (DL2i+)

63 >>I mean, think of the nicknames.

Bunter, Punter, er...

mulva?

Posted by: George Costanza at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (g48gT)

64 As a lawyer, I find it fascinating how on the Supreme Court, the "conservative" justices always struggle with how precedent should be applied or what should properly be read into the Constitution or federal laws and mostly seem to make a principled effort to come up with the correct result in a case. This makes for lots of unpredictability in what the so-called conservatives will do because it means that the conservative justices will occasionally side with the liberals, just on principle.

On the other hand, the lefties are always LOCK-STEP left. They never waver. They never apply an analysis that will make the Left lose. NOT EVER. It doesn't matter what the issue is or how it might be analyzed, the liberals vote 100% reliably liberal. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Playing against unprincipled cheaters is a game that conservatism is bound to lose in the long run. So why can't the Right get some corrupt, conscience-less political hacks on our side of the bench for a change?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 29, 2016 06:28 PM (8ZskC)

65 That cheese is going to give you the blow out shits.

Posted by: Walker at March 29, 2016 06:29 PM (mcm0N)

66 Bernie is an old name for an old fart. It was popular back when men wore hats in public.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:29 PM (fWLrt)

67 there was millions riding on this case

there are other huge rulings lurking out there

scalia died somewhat unexpectedly

no autopsy

this is the pelican brief movie only its for real

Posted by: sound awake at March 29, 2016 06:29 PM (i7LpU)

68 Idk. I like the boy/girl names. Ryan is another one. I like that for a girl. There are so many very feminine pretty names though.

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:29 PM (2x3L+)

69 >>>I did not know cheese came in tranches.

wedge i meant, but i couldn't come up with the word.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:29 PM (dciA+)

70 US v Texas, the case about Obama's amnesty executive orders, gets argued before SCOTUS on April 18. We'll really miss Scalia on this one.

The base case should be easy. Obama actually didn't issue an executive order, but instead had the DHS head issue a memo. Either way it clearly didn't comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. But I'm looking forward to the pretzel logic of the four Ds to get around this to reach a 4-4 decision.

A tie upholds the Fifth Circuit's shooting down Obama's action, but you can expect Obama to say that without a 5 to 4 decision, the actions are still valid outside the Fifth Circuit and to keep providing what is in effect amnesty.

Note also that in the lower court DOJ lawyers were caught lying to a Federal judge, and more than once.

If Scalia were around we'd have at a 5-4 decision that would have reached the question that Obama had violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which would have been a Holy Shit Headline. Alas ...

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 29, 2016 06:30 PM (r1fLd)

71 31
Stare Decisis? The court dislikes overturning its own precedents. But,
does a tie vote get treated like a precedent, or does the issue remain
one that they will not feel constrained in overturning?

In other
words, if Garland had been on the court, and a 5-4 decision came down
affirming the lower court ruling, would that have been treated with more
deference by a future court?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (R+30W)

If they were following stare decisis they would have ruled against the unions and not had a tie. Every decision in the past 10 or 20 years on forced union dues has gone against the unions. That is the current precedent.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:30 PM (vvmPQ)

72 >>Okay I laughed....

Me too. Apparently I'm easily amused tonight.

Posted by: Marion Morrison at March 29, 2016 06:30 PM (/tuJf)

73 Hunter doesn't seem like a good name for a girl.

I mean, think of the nicknames.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (dciA+)

I knew a girl named Hunter.

Very attractive.

Blonde.

Posted by: Harry Paratestes at March 29, 2016 06:30 PM (AkOaV)

74 55 Ace, if I bump into Danger Girl on the blog, I will make a point of telling her. That will make her very happy and make her feel special that you went to the trouble. Did you like the cheese btw?

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (2x3L+)

++++

Just make sure you don't apologize.

Posted by: Corey Lewandowski at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (R+30W)

75

Who the heck would name their kid Barack?

Posted by: In Vino Veritits at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (KId5h)

76 Confederates are still around? Destroying opportunity, decreasing prosperity and efficiency, actively undermining an open society and rule of law, forming a perfect iron triangle with one captive party and self-dealing voters to ruin public administration, and promoting racism - like unions?

Huh. You learn something new at the HQ every day.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (QDnY+)

77 get some corrupt, conscience-less political hacks on our side of the bench for a change?

Hello!

Posted by: GOPe Senate at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (DL2i+)

78 Usually financing comes in tranches. Cheese, not so much.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (8ZskC)

79 Who the heck would name their kid Barack?

A Communist....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (O2RFr)

80 If you don't like a certain cheese, you can always just wrap it in bacon and deep fry it.

Other than limburger, however. Even bacon doesn't help.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (fWLrt)

81 >>>>> Posted by: Corey Lewandowski at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (R+30W)
----
Okay, that made me laugh.

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:32 PM (2x3L+)

82 .

Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2016 06:32 PM (/tuJf)

83 Hunter doesn't seem like a good name for a girl.

I mean, think of the nicknames.

Posted by: ace at March 29, 2016 06:26 PM (dciA+)
It's not a good name for a girl.
But then there's...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Tylo

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:32 PM (5p18q)

84 http://tinyurl.com/hnppe7u

I did not know cheese came in tranches.

wedge i meant, but i couldn't come up with the word.

I thought it was a French thing you were doing. Which apparently it is and quien sabe'

Posted by: GOPe Senate at March 29, 2016 06:33 PM (DL2i+)

85

"Oh, the cats eaten it!"

Posted by: In Vino Veritits at March 29, 2016 06:33 PM (KId5h)

86 First for what will be many, many horrible SCOTUS decisions.

We're f**ked as a nation.

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 29, 2016 06:33 PM (vBeA5)

87 My cats like cheese, yogurt even more

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:34 PM (fizMZ)

88 On union dues, the good guys were trying to overturn the status quo and needed a 5-4 decision to get it. We know how Scalia would have voted.

Effect of 4-4 tie is "no precedential decision" and the status quo continues. But a similar case can be brought in the future. If so, the outcome will swing on who's the next SCOTUS appointee.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 29, 2016 06:34 PM (r1fLd)

89 Hunter is a great name for an evil ginger.

I picture her posing in front of ball-sacks hanging from her bedposts.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:34 PM (fWLrt)

90 So why can't the Right get some corrupt, conscience-less political hacks on our side of the bench for a change?

Because we don't win elections, and even if we do the GOPe Senate preemptively surrenders.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at March 29, 2016 06:34 PM (kBIIG)

91 Wouldnt becoming an artisan cheesemaker be fun? Sure you would have to wear a hair net and white clothes and scrub out big stainless steel vats, but you would be creating something. We would need a cave to age the cheese in, tho...

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 06:34 PM (iQIUe)

92 34
You petition for a rehearing when the court had not addressed an argument you made in your brief.

----

Tie result leaves the option open.
The ruling was One sentence..
The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.
So NOTHING was addressed.

Per Scotusblog, no precedent set, and allowed to repetition within 25 days. The lawyers are already indicating they will petition for rehearing before a full court, next term, per the rules of the court.
As long as at least 5 Justices agree, it will be reheard.

Unions were terrified by this case.
The goal was to overturn Abood v Detroit (1977). They had conceded at the lower level because of that precedent. So the case, originally heard with Scalia present, would have likely over turned Abood.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:35 PM (Gl74b)

93 Playing against unprincipled cheaters is a game that conservatism is bound to lose in the long run. So why can't the Right get some corrupt, conscience-less political hacks on our side of the bench for a change?

Because conservatives - who I gladly no longer identify with and in turn no longer identify with my kind - often hide behind their principles.

Me ... I didn't sit my ass right down as a kid and listen the first time I heard Milton Friedman on Donahue because I admired his principles. I listened because what he said made sense and I could see how it would work.

Principles are a hell of a thing, apparently. Many people die fighting for them. I understand that.

I don't get forming a line to be butchered for them.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:36 PM (fiGNd)

94 71 31
Stare Decisis? The court dislikes overturning its own precedents. But,
does a tie vote get treated like a precedent, or does the issue remain
one that they will not feel constrained in overturning?

In other
words, if Garland had been on the court, and a 5-4 decision came down
affirming the lower court ruling, would that have been treated with more
deference by a future court?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 29, 2016 06:20 PM (R+30W)

If they were following stare decisis they would have ruled against the unions and not had a tie. Every decision in the past 10 or 20 years on forced union dues has gone against the unions. That is the current precedent.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:30 PM (vvmPQ)

++++

Thanks for the response. But, my question is more of a procedural one. This court has now made a decision regarding this case in question. Because there was not a majority to overturn, the lower court decision was upheld. Normally, when the court makes a decision, it is treated as a precedent. Does the fact that this decision was a tie make any difference in how this decision will be treated, precedent wise?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 29, 2016 06:36 PM (R+30W)

95 So Ace will vote for Hillary if Trump is the nominee? This Supreme Court decision shows how supremely stupid those kind of threats are. Because Hillary will certainly appoint more conservative justices than Trump?

Posted by: Dogbert at March 29, 2016 06:36 PM (fz1Nv)

96 What wine is going to go with this cheese?

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:36 PM (fizMZ)

97 91 Wouldnt becoming an artisan cheesemaker be fun?
----------------

Making cheese isn't hard. And you can store the equipment on the same shelf where you keep your pot-still.

Posted by: Roy at March 29, 2016 06:37 PM (fWLrt)

98 Teachers? But not smart enough to realize that voting for prog democrats will bit you in your liberal arss.

Posted by: Buffalbob at March 29, 2016 06:37 PM (8nL8o)

99 Cicero, you are correct, but you so understate the problem.

Andy McCarthy had a memorable - if fairly obvious - summation, that the "libs" were there to vote, not judge.

But it's much, much worse than that, of course. Look at the ludicrous stylings of Roberts and Kennedy, in just their worst rulings. The court(s) are often fundamentally far outside their lane, even when there is some slight nod to seriousness and integrity in their rulings.

Posted by: rhomboid at March 29, 2016 06:37 PM (QDnY+)

100 94 Normally, when the court makes a decision, it is treated as a precedent.
Does the fact that this decision was a tie make any difference in how this decision will be treated, precedent wise?

__________________________________

Since it was a tie vote there is no decision and no precedent.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:37 PM (vvmPQ)

101 Playing against unprincipled cheaters is a game that conservatism is bound to lose in the long run. So why can't the Right get some corrupt, conscience-less political hacks on our side of the bench for a change?

----

Corrupt Conscience-less political hacks wouldn't ever actually be on OUR side of the bench, basically by definition. We have principles. They have goals.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at March 29, 2016 06:37 PM (7whxM)

102 Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:36 PM (fiGNd)

If your opinions aren't guided by principles, then they will be guided by your feelz.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:38 PM (5p18q)

103 Dues aren't going to save CALPERS or the US from the pit.

Posted by: DaveA at March 29, 2016 06:38 PM (DL2i+)

104 Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:35 PM (Gl74b)

++++

Thanks.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 29, 2016 06:38 PM (R+30W)

105 Hey, I wear hats. Nice ones. Stetsons.

Posted by: navybrat at March 29, 2016 06:38 PM (8QGte)

106 I just wish parents stop naming their kids with gender-ambiguous names. Such as "Hunter" or "Jordan". Ugh. Stop it

"Hey Jordan, that's a boy's name on a girl..."

- Peter Wolf

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 06:39 PM (1xUj/)

107 Thank God for the senator who is blocking hearing Barry's potential appointment. Can't remember who it is, but Thank God that he is. I hope he can fend this off successfully

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:39 PM (2x3L+)

108 107
Thank God for the senator who is blocking hearing Barry's potential
appointment. Can't remember who it is, but Thank God that he is. I
hope he can fend this off successfully

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:39 PM (2x3L+)

They have to get 60 votes just to get it on the floor and they do not have 60 votes even with the traitors we have in the Senate.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:40 PM (vvmPQ)

109 Just for this reason Prager brought me back from the edge of NeverTrump, but then he went to a commercial and Ben Shapiro was on with Dana Loesch and was almost back to were in was in the beginning of the day.

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:40 PM (fizMZ)

110 If your opinions aren't guided by principles, then they will be guided by your feelz.

No ... my decisions are guided by my desire to survive what I'm damn sure is coming.

And you do not want to even start engaging me on this. Trust me teacher.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:41 PM (fiGNd)

111 In Our Family We have a Taylor, boy and Dylan boy..... Both names are used for both boys and Girls.... What ever happened to good old fashioned names like Donna?

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:41 PM (O2RFr)

112
Hey! We could all make cheeeeeese! And we cd travel the country selling our cheese at fairs.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 06:41 PM (iQIUe)

113 Hey! We could all make cheeeeeese! And we cd travel the country selling our cheese at fairs.

Until the food"safety" gestapo stopped Us....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:42 PM (O2RFr)

114 @1: "
I miss Scalia"

We didn't.

Posted by: A sinister cabal of shadowy forces at March 29, 2016 06:43 PM (rznWS)

115
Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:41 PM (fiGNd)
I got it. You want to believe that we are in a situation where 'lifeboat ethics' apply.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:43 PM (5p18q)

116 I wanted my twins, Aenius and Budgina, to have unique names that honored their heritage. Yeah sure, maybe they sound super high class and pretentious, but that was a risk we were willing to take.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 29, 2016 06:43 PM (1RNgT)

117 Gender-ambiguous names are perfect since if your little bundle of joy decides that he is actually a she, you don't actually have to change any documents! Think of the money saved on monogrammed towels!

Posted by: Colorado Alex at March 29, 2016 06:43 PM (kqIMj)

118
111
In Our Family We have a Taylor, boy and Dylan boy..... Both names are
used for both boys and Girls.... What ever happened to good old
fashioned names like Donna?

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:41 PM (O2RFr)
Dylan is used as a girl's name now?
Ugh...........

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:44 PM (5p18q)

119 I'm guessing if you want to make a small fortune making cheese start with a large one.

Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:44 PM (fizMZ)

120 When I was a kid public employee unions were illegal. There is no reason to have them since there is no boss/employee adversarial arrangement with public service employees. The public service bosses do not pay the wages of their employees, the taxpayers do and they are not represented at these labor contract talks and it has resulted in runaway contracts and bankrupting the cities and in CA's case the State.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:44 PM (vvmPQ)

121 But it's much, much worse than that, of course. Look at the ludicrous stylings of Roberts and Kennedy, in just their worst rulings. The court(s) are often fundamentally far outside their lane, even when there is some slight nod to seriousness and integrity in their rulings.

Yep. Gay marriage -- it's such a basic right under the U.S. Constitution that no state can now refuse it, no matter what kind of majority it could muster to oppose it. Yet 15 years ago, gay marriage was something that only a handful of freaks advocated and no founding father would ever have considered to be a "right." These judges are ruling based on today's cool trends, and that is indeed pure bullshit.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 29, 2016 06:44 PM (8ZskC)

122 I got it. You want to believe that we are in a situation where 'lifeboat ethics' apply.

Teacher ... I'll give you one more shot at this. You're not dealing with one of your students. I know an attempt to "get the last word" when I see it.

Let it go. I don't give a damn about your opinion.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:45 PM (fiGNd)

123 Hillary is already on record as saying that she'll have litmus tests for SCOTUS appointees on abortion and overturning Citizens United. I'd add Heller right to bear arms decision to the list. Picking appointees expressly to overturn recent SCOTUS decisions is problematic to the way things used to work. I can think of a few Kennedy and Roberts decisions I'd expressly like to have overturned. But turnabout is not fair play for Republicans. This is another example of how we're involved in asymmetric warfare. Republican appointees can get Borked, but a BFF of Democratic President like Donna Kagan sail through.

Posted by: Ignoramus at March 29, 2016 06:45 PM (r1fLd)

124 117 Gender-ambiguous names are perfect since if your little bundle of joy decides that he is actually a she, you don't actually have to change any documents! Think of the money saved on monogrammed towels!

True, but usually in those cases they choose the most girly or the most manly names to emphasis their "change."

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:45 PM (O2RFr)

125 I'm so old I can remember when no self respecting gay person would ever WANT to get married.
Marriage was for squares.

Posted by: navybrat at March 29, 2016 06:45 PM (8QGte)

126 Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 29, 2016 06:43 PM (1RNgT)
I'm sure some idiot will agree with you with direction we are headed.

Posted by: CaliGirl at March 29, 2016 06:46 PM (egOGm)

127
TE Lawrence is buried in Dorsit in a small chapel. There is a sculpture of him in full arab costume on the tomb.

The photo of the sculpture doesnt do it justice. The church dates to 1030 AD

https://goo.gl/6zQQzv

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 06:46 PM (iQIUe)

128 Oh look Trump got a better colorist for his hair/spray tan.

Posted by: Walker at March 29, 2016 06:46 PM (mcm0N)

129 >>Hillary is already on record as saying that she'll have litmus tests for SCOTUS appointees on abortion and overturning Citizens United

Funny how 'It's the Law of the Land' only applies when a Progressive agrees with the Court.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:48 PM (g48gT)

130 Sadly, the Appeals Court couldn't overturn Abood v Detroit BoE on their own, because they have to follow Supreme Court precedent.

Posted by: cthulhu at March 29, 2016 06:48 PM (EzgxV)

131 Here's how the end will start.
Hillary/Bernie will pick rabid leftist (redundant) for SC
Far left SC pick rules against the 2nd amend case from a blue state. May be strict laws against guns or outright ban.

May cause exodus of blue state locusts to red states with more liberal gun laws...but they will continue to vote dem...

Worse case scenario, after SC strikes down the 2nd, Congress gets into the act to ban firearms and the GOPe surrenders.

Posted by: Tilikum KAW SPI at March 29, 2016 06:48 PM (u0kqM)

132 @50: "Who the hell names their kid Bernie?"

Fans of Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman?

Posted by: FaCubeItches at March 29, 2016 06:48 PM (rznWS)

133 Speaking of names a kid on our block was named "Ace".

When we were all around 7 or 8 years old my older sister started calling him "Acehole" and it stuck.

The poor kid went through the rest of his time in our neighborhood, about 20 odd years, being called "Acehole". I don't think he turned out well from tidbits I pick up from long time associates when I visit my old neighborhood.

Posted by: Hairyback Guy at March 29, 2016 06:49 PM (ej1L0)

134
WHEN I DO THE SPLITS MY SCROTUS DRAGS ON THE FLOOR AND PICKS UP LINT, BIRDSEED, AND CHEESE CRUMBS.

Posted by: MIRROR UNIVERSE MAJOR RETARD at March 29, 2016 06:49 PM (KId5h)

135 I will name my next son or daughter Corey Lewandowski as an homage to Mr. Trump.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 29, 2016 06:49 PM (1RNgT)

136 Oh look Trump got a better colorist for his hair/spray tan.

You know, it's someone's actual job to spray that orange on him.

Picture it. Where does it stop? Does he only do the face and arms and collar, or does he go full-body?

Somewhere a grown person has to squirt Tang ink on his flabby belly and little dangly Trump bits.

That's a job that should be unionized.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 06:49 PM (1xUj/)

137 Making cheese isn't hard. And you can store the equipment on the same shelf where you keep your pot-still..... I make fumunda cheese all the time. I let it culture between my thighs and my meatflap..

Posted by: Hillery at March 29, 2016 06:50 PM (kUtYJ)

138 Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:44 PM (vvmPQ)
Public employee unions should be outlawed. CA is screwed because of them and many other reasons.

Posted by: CaliGirl at March 29, 2016 06:50 PM (egOGm)

139 WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOME STUPID SUPREME COURT DECISION?

DON'T YOU SEE THAT TUBE BOMB IN MICHELE FIELD"S HANDS?!?!?

Posted by: President Elect Trump at March 29, 2016 06:50 PM (kBIIG)

140 >>I'm so old I can remember when no self respecting gay person would ever WANT to get married.

I used to have a couple of gay neighbors. Very successful, one was an ophthalmologist and the other a shrink. The shrink used to joke that he had mostly gay customers and business was good.

They both thought the idea of gay people getting married was dumb and just a pretentious fad.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 29, 2016 06:50 PM (/tuJf)

141 Teacher ... I'll give you one more shot at this.
You're not dealing with one of your students. I know an attempt to "get
the last word" when I see it.

Let it go. I don't give a damn about your opinion.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:45 PM (fiGNd)
I would love to have a reasoned discussion about why you think principles are no longer needed and how we can have an orderly society if people do not believe that they are compelled to act according to some higher principle.

Actually, by your declaration that you are interested in only preserving your standing, you are embracing your own principle, that of self-preservation.

Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:51 PM (5p18q)

142 Of course the unions had to fight this case tooth and nail because the public service unions are about all they have left.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:51 PM (vvmPQ)

143 130
Sadly, the Appeals Court couldn't overturn Abood v Detroit BoE on their
own, because they have to follow Supreme Court precedent.

----

Yep that is the way it works.

The Cali Teachers Lawyers had to concede in that in the 9th Curcuit, and let them rule against them, based on the precedent. That was the only way to get it before SCOTUS.

And they did. But Scalia's death between the arguments and the decision changed everything.
I wish they would publish his notes on the hearing. I would love to have seen where his opinion was going with this, especially if he was going to write it.

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 06:52 PM (Gl74b)

144 That's a job that should be unionized.

You ain't shittin'.

I've been Cruz primary, Trump general for the git. But honestly - the only thing moving me to vote Trump in the general is all the people he pisses off.

But that's no small thing. It's literally ALL the right people.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:52 PM (fiGNd)

145 142 Of course the unions had to fight this case tooth and nail because the public service unions are about all they have left.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 20

I object more to where those dues go..... It goes to elect Dems and pass every frigging tax they can....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:52 PM (O2RFr)

146 Worse case scenario, after SC strikes down the 2nd, Congress gets into the act to ban firearms and the GOPe surrenders.

Posted by: Tilikum KAW SPI at March 29, 2016 06:48 PM (u0kqM)

I wouldn't be surprised if they declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional because of "Social Justice"...

Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at March 29, 2016 06:53 PM (vBeA5)

147 I don't think that I am conscience-less but I would be more than willing to serve as a political hack on the Supreme Court. Part of the fun would be thinking about the law students reading my opinions in the years to come.

"Because of the 'penumbras and emanations clause' and Fuck You, that's why."

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 06:54 PM (MpvuV)

148 >>>>Oh look Trump got a better colorist for his hair/spray tan.
------
Yeah, it baffles me why Melania doesn't intervene and help him out. Though I will say aside from the bad hair and bad spray tan, he looks pretty good for a 69 yr old. He doesn't seem to have had any plastic surgery. I think he has a nice smile.

Posted by: L, Elle at March 29, 2016 06:55 PM (2x3L+)

149 I think choosing Abood v Detroit (1977) was a POS decision anyway for precedent. There have been many other decisions, in fact all of them in the past 10 or 20 years, where the courts have ruled against the unions on forced dues collection. Only in CA with the corrupt 9th circuit would this happen.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:55 PM (vvmPQ)

150
Idk. I like the boy/girl names. Ryan is another one. I like that for a
girl. There are so many very feminine pretty names though.

--

My name can go both ways, although it leans feminine, imho. I don't mind boy/girl names so much. Just not really odd ones. I know a young woman who named her son Banks. That's...out there.

Posted by: Lady in Black...Death to the Man Bun at March 29, 2016 06:55 PM (pVkEV)

151

boy

those NRA ads. Those are good. They just hit Hillary right between the eyes without even saying her name

Posted by: ThunderB at March 29, 2016 06:55 PM (zOTsN)

152 I wouldn't be surprised if they declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional because of "Social Justice"...-------The Constitutional Hat

One fell swoop, eh? I am sure they would love to try at that pojnt.
I suspect they will dismantle it bit by bit. 2nd, 1st, 4th...

Posted by: Tilikum KAW SPI at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (u0kqM)

153 Only in CA with the corrupt 9th circuit would this happen.
Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:55 PM (vvmPQ)

Yup, the most over-turned Court...

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (O2RFr)

154 146 Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at March 29, 2016 06:53 PM (vBeA5)

Outmoded..."too old"....

of course what pisses me off, but is pretty much undeniable is the left uses the subtle threat of state sanctioned or rather unpunished violence to get their end.

I labored under the illusion for decades that the GOP was as earnest if not zealous in safeguarding the US Constitution as I was and would defend it by whatever means were necessary.

I should have known better and seen this coming after Bork.

Posted by: sven10077 at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (g8Hfr)

155 Anyone who has an undergraduate degree in education is, by definition, not the person who you want teaching your children.

An 18 year old who is mostly motivated by having their summers off is not likely to inspire a great work ethic

Posted by: Sir Isaac Newton at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (12kBq)

156

You know, it's someone's actual job to spray that orange on him.

Picture it. Where does it stop? Does he only do the face and arms and collar, or does he go full-body?

Somewhere a grown person has to squirt Tang ink on his flabby belly and little dangly Trump bits.

That's a job that should be unionized.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 06:49 PM (1xUj/)

********

They should at least get hazard duty pay and a free hazmat suit.

Posted by: Walker at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (mcm0N)

157 37
I just wish parents stop naming their kids with gender-ambiguous names. Such as "Hunter" or "Jordan". Ugh. Stop it.
Posted by: chemjeff at March 29, 2016 06:22 PM (5p18q)
------------
Yeah, well,... I don't mind the ambiguous ones as much as the use of traditional male names for girls.
I think Miley Cyrus has a sister named Noah.
And Ryan Reynolds named his daughter James.
Mila Kunis named her daughter Wyatt. etc etc etc

I'm waiting for a boy named Sue --- although I notice that the transgendering of names seems always to go male to female, not the other way around.
There must never, ever be anything to which males can lay claim and females cannot appropriate.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 29, 2016 06:57 PM (T/5A0)

158 Posted by: SFGoth at March 29, 2016 06:15 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Skip at March 29, 2016 06:19 PM (fizMZ)

Uh.....it was a joke.

And some of my best friends are Jews!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2016 06:57 PM (Zu3d9)

159 nood

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at March 29, 2016 06:58 PM (vvmPQ)

160 My penumbra itches.

Posted by: Sandra Flook at March 29, 2016 06:58 PM (Dwehj)

161 I find myself in the interesting position of being a card-carrying conservative and co-president of my bargaining unit. I'd rather set the tone and lead the charge than let someone else do it. At a very local level, the work can be worthwhile.

Posted by: Travis at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (9WkMB)

162 chemjeff ... I'd love you to just leave me the fuck alone.

Or post an itemized list of the shit you own. Because you may have some shit that I want - if and when it comes to that.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (fiGNd)

163 Bandersnatch,
Trump probably wears a disposable g string during his spray tan. I wonder if they make him bend over so he doesn't have tan lines under his buns.
TMI?

Posted by: CaliGirl at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (egOGm)

164 155 Posted by: Sir Isaac Newton at March 29, 2016 06:56 PM (12kBq)

No, I'd say they fit right in with the union mindset.

Posted by: sven10077 at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (g8Hfr)

165 Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2016 06:27 PM (g48gT)

Now you tell me!

The first time I put Taleggio on a pizza I made an incredible mess. It was everywhere.

It turned out well, but damn....getting the cheese off the ceiling was a pain.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (Zu3d9)

166
I've been Cruz primary, Trump general for the git.

----

Cannot do it.
I truly believe that Trump will be just as bad as Clinton (Both Bill and Hillary) and Obama in the White House.

I

Posted by: sippin_bourbon at March 29, 2016 07:00 PM (Gl74b)

167 Sucks for them. Elections have consequences.

Posted by: ryukyu at March 29, 2016 07:00 PM (FuBZa)

168 I'd almost prefer a Proggie court overturn the Constitution itself and even rename the country. Better than a Proggie tyranny wear the skin mask of the Constitution and so disgracing it...

Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at March 29, 2016 07:01 PM (vBeA5)

169 Trump probably wears a disposable g string during his spray tan. I wonder if they make him bend over so he doesn't have tan lines under his buns.
TMI?

Heh, thanks for actual info. I can't call TMI after I created that visual in the first place.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 07:01 PM (1xUj/)

170 I truly believe that Trump will be just as bad as Clinton (Both Bill and Hillary) and Obama in the White House.

Talking to the cat that sat out McCain / Obama. I get it.

There are no right answers in this cluster fuck.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 07:02 PM (fiGNd)

171 @93: "Principles are a hell of a thing, apparently. Many people die fighting for them."

Actually, very, very few do. When it comes time for metal to meet meat, the vast majority will abandon principle every single time.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at March 29, 2016 07:02 PM (rznWS)

172 162 chemjeff ... I'd love you to just leave me the fuck alone.
Or post an itemized list of the shit you own. Because you may have some shit that I want - if and when it comes to that.
Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 06:59 PM (fiGNd)

Question: What part of the no gratuitous personal attacks policy was unclear to you? Be specific.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:03 PM (pAlYe)

173 @99: "But it's much, much worse than that, of course. Look at the
ludicrous stylings of Roberts and Kennedy, in just their worst rulings.
The court(s) are often fundamentally far outside their lane, even when
there is some slight nod to seriousness and integrity in their rulings."

The Court is part of the government. It's not there to limit government power, but to find justifications for expanding it.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at March 29, 2016 07:04 PM (rznWS)

174 Worst case scenario for a Proggie court?

A Dem Congress says "I can haz Article V convention", and then not only rigs delegations and voting strength in favor of Proggie states, but invites Mexico, Canada, Cuba, et al. to send delegates (with each Mexican state and Canadian province/territory separate delagations).

SCOTUS rubber stamps it.

A new "Constitution" that makes South Africa's look reactinary is presented offering lots of free s**t. Calls for conventions to circumvent the legislatures.

People vote for free s**t.

Proggies hell hole founded.

Posted by: The Constitutional Hat at March 29, 2016 07:05 PM (vBeA5)

175 Most celebrity kids with stupid names change them when they become adults.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:05 PM (iQIUe)

176 Maet ... when I tell chemjeff multiple times that I have no desire to converse - and he continues to interact - at what point does "leave me alone" seem a bridge too far.

I know - for whatever reason - he's a favorite of the cobs. But I told him, I don't want to play, more than once. I didn't seek his opinion. I informed him I didn't want to converse.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 07:06 PM (fiGNd)

177
Huh. It's windy and lightly raining Of course the weather says 0% precipitation.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:07 PM (iQIUe)

178 I remember in the 90s reading that 70% of teachers were conservative and 99% of their union dues were used to promote lefty causes.

I think the unions and the NEA have driven out a lot of the conservatives and recruited lefties to take their places. And some of the conservatives turned lefty due to the constant barrage of lefty propaganda aimed at them.

Posted by: Emmie at March 29, 2016 07:07 PM (rRHdN)

179 Land of the free, home of the

Forced union dues
Forced healthcare purchase
Forced SS# from birth
Forced DNA sampling upon arrest
Forced passports to leave the US

er, brave.

Posted by: GnuBreed at March 29, 2016 07:07 PM (gyKtp)

180 @101: "We have principles. They have goals."

Given that the Right will *always* negotiate on its "principles," actually calling them principles is one hell of a misnomer.

Posted by: FaCubeItches at March 29, 2016 07:07 PM (rznWS)

181 176 Maet ... when I tell chemjeff multiple times that I have no desire to converse - and he continues to interact - at what point does "leave me alone" seem a bridge too far.
I know - for whatever reason - he's a favorite of the cobs. But I told him, I don't want to play, more than once. I didn't seek his opinion. I informed him I didn't want to converse.
Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 07:06 PM (fiGNd)

Then ignore him. This is an open forum. If you post a comment here, it's fair game for someone to comment on it.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:08 PM (pAlYe)

182 Sink da pink...embrace da stink

Posted by: Hillerys meatflaps at March 29, 2016 07:09 PM (kUtYJ)

183 A report on the radio the other day said California had a growth rate of 6% which was the highest in the USA. I guess the whole country would be a utopia if we had mandatory union dues and a $15 minimum wage.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at March 29, 2016 07:09 PM (FkBIv)

184 Who the heck would name their kid Barack?

A Communist....

Posted by: donna at March 29, 2016 06:31 PM (O2RFr)

A bigamist and alcoholic

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 29, 2016 07:10 PM (45oDG)

185 Fine Maet ...

... I look forward to commenting on every single thing chemjeff says for now on. Until he requests differently.

And he will.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 07:11 PM (fiGNd)

186 Your stinky cheeses should never overpower the flavor of your stinky meats and stale cracker shovels.

Posted by: Fritz at March 29, 2016 07:11 PM (+E2Y7)

187 The Roku lets me watch shows like Ballykissangel which was pretty good for the first three seasons and then went really bad really fast.

One of the entertaining jokes in that show is that everybody has an extremely Irish name. My children are lucky that I had not seen that show before they were named. I think that my daughters Assumpta and Fidelma would have probably killed me in my sleep by now.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 07:12 PM (MpvuV)

188 185 Fine Maet ...
... I look forward to commenting on every single thing chemjeff says for now on. Until he requests differently.
And he will.
Posted by: ScoggDog at March 29, 2016 07:11 PM (fiGNd)

You seem unclear on the whole ignore thing. If you can't abide by the rules that everyone else does, then perhaps this is not the blog for you.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:13 PM (pAlYe)

189 And the resident shit stirrer stirs again!

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:16 PM (iQIUe)

190 You seem unclear on the whole ignore thing. If you can't abide by the rules that everyone else does, then perhaps this is not the blog for you.
Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:13 PM (pAlYe)

===========
So, if chemjeff cant ignore ScoggDog, this isnt the blog for him?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:17 PM (iQIUe)

191 So, if chemjeff cant ignore ScoggDog, this isnt the blog for him?
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:17 PM (iQIUe)

chemjeff hasn't been violating a blog policy.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:19 PM (pAlYe)

192 him = chemjeff

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:19 PM (iQIUe)

193 Maetenloch

When there is not a fresh head on the stick, some people get the impression that the rules are not enforced.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 07:20 PM (MpvuV)

194 Whether blog policy or not, how hard is it to just leave people the fk alone after being requested to do so numerous times?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:22 PM (iQIUe)

195
chemjeff = Eddie Haskel
Maet = The Beav's Mom

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:24 PM (iQIUe)

196 @ Maetenloch

I think you're on the wrong side of this one.

Posted by: dDan at March 29, 2016 07:25 PM (hwYmz)

197 Whether blog policy or not, how hard is it to just leave people the fk alone after being requested to do so numerous times?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:22 PM (iQIUe)

I would think the answer to that would be obvious. Because the comments section is not a series of two-party conversations. Chemjeff may be responding to a point made by ScoggDog, but the audience is everyone who is following this thread. You do not get to pick and choose who may or may not respond to what you write here.

Posted by: HTL at March 29, 2016 07:27 PM (NAWno)

198 194 Whether blog policy or not, how hard is it to just leave people the fk alone after being requested to do so numerous times?
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:22 PM (iQIUe)

So what you're proposing is some sort of gag policy where someone can post comments but then demand that certain other commenters not be allowed to respond to them?

That's not the way this place works. That's not how any of this works.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:30 PM (pAlYe)

199 I seem to recall a rule about arguing with the cobs about the rules but maybe I am just misrembering.

The cobs do this thankless job without pay. Having to get in petty squabbling because some people think the blog should be run more to their liking probably does not make the thankless, unpaid job more fun.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 07:32 PM (MpvuV)

200 Just more of the left constitutionalizing more of their agenda.

If only we didn't have a fraudulent political party acting the part of the Washington Generals.

Posted by: Kreplach at March 29, 2016 07:32 PM (WVvzl)

201 It's pronounced azz-wee-pay.

Posted by: Asswipe Johnson at March 29, 2016 07:34 PM (kTF2Z)

202 I would think the answer to that would be obvious. Because the comments section is not a series of two-party conversations.

What I try to do (unless I'm actually trying to flatter or annoy someone) is to quote the text I'm responding to, and not the name, as here.

Keeps things focused on the argument itself.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 07:36 PM (1xUj/)

203 Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:30 PM (pAlYe)

=========
Okay, June.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:37 PM (iQIUe)

204 Okay, June.
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:37 PM (iQIUe)

I'm just clarifying blog policy - I haven't been rude or disrespectful to you in any way. So I'm going to let this pass. This time.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:40 PM (pAlYe)

205 What I try to do (unless I'm actually trying to flatter or annoy someone) is to quote the text I'm responding to, and not the name, as here.

Keeps things focused on the argument itself.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 07:36 PM (1xUj/)

=============
Or, people do that hoping they can get in some smart ass comment and the person wont see it and respond.

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:42 PM (iQIUe)

206 I'm just clarifying blog policy - I haven't been rude or disrespectful to you in any way. So I'm going to let this pass. This time.
Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:40 PM (pAlYe)

=======
Lose your sense of humor, did you?

Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:43 PM (iQIUe)

207 What I try to do (unless I'm actually trying to flatter or annoy someone) is to quote the text I'm responding to, and not the name, as here.

Keeps things focused on the argument itself.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 07:36 PM (1xUj/)

I see the point you are making here, but if you don't quote the name/time, it makes it hard for a latecomer to figure out the discussion up to that point, especially if it's been spread out over a comment or two and you need to backtrack to get the context.

Posted by: HTL at March 29, 2016 07:43 PM (NAWno)

208 Or, people do that hoping they can get in some smart ass comment and the person wont see it and respond.

What's the point of a smartass comment if it doesn't get seen or responded to?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at March 29, 2016 07:44 PM (1xUj/)

209 One of the compensating activities that can make the the cob's job rewarding is the power to wield the banhammer when someone continues to violate the rules, for example by personally insulting a cob.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at March 29, 2016 07:44 PM (MpvuV)

210 Lose your sense of humor, did you?
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at March 29, 2016 07:43 PM (iQIUe)

Yes kind of - it's out being refurbished and upgraded. This was all covered in the memo.

Posted by: Maetenloch at March 29, 2016 07:45 PM (pAlYe)

211 Now you understand why SC Justice Scalia was murdered, and you know who was responsible for the murder.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars did the unions protect by killing Scalia?

Really easy to understand if you have even half a brain.

Posted by: Joe Mannix at March 29, 2016 07:56 PM (UsCnO)

212 Ace: "...just like Obama, who's given to claiming lately that there's no difference between capitalism and communism."

At first I thought he was just tired of pretending not to be a Commie. But it's more than that. I think he's helping Bernie with branding because he knows Hillary is getting indicted.

Posted by: the Gipper Lives at March 29, 2016 09:50 PM (Ndje9)

213 There is no strategic benefit to hearing Garland unless there's a President-elect Clinton. The differences between him and a Ginsburg clone would be discernable only at the extreme margins. There will be no Obamacare-like cliffhangers with any Democrat-appointed judge in any meaningful case. Democrats know their job is to get on the court and make law. The only thing he has going in his favor is his older age and that he's a man, so he hopefully won't live as long as a woman

If Clinton is elected, it won't matter anyway. Ginsburg will retire and Breyer and Kennedy may retire. The left will then have the young 6-3 super-legistlature of their dreams and whatever remaining rights you thought you'd never lose will soon be gone too.

Posted by: Crrr6 (hotair refugee) at March 29, 2016 10:21 PM (r23qW)

214 When we filed suit against our union they admitted under oath that 80% of those mandatory dues went to campaign donations, and virtually all of that was to Dems. It's over folks.

Posted by: Pj at March 29, 2016 11:50 PM (zaNM+)

215 I love that "in the absence of Scalia" crack - like, we just finished with Easter and the rock's being moved and the Risen Tony's currently working his way thru the malls and factory outlets of America like Elvis did, bless us all, lo them many years. Tony as New Dead Elvis, that's nice.

Still, there's no precedent for the Risen Tony to return to work on the SCOTUS and there's no way to torture the original words of the constitution to allow for Risen Tony's formerly alive now dead flesh to be propped back up there beside its very own speaker alternating old Scal-dingers with Henny Youngman shots. Tony, he gone, and he ain't comin' back.

'sokay tho, Merland the Magic will dress up a fat suit every once in a white, swig grappa and fart loudly, and most folks won't see the difference.

Posted by: Lord Prufrock Brothyjest at March 30, 2016 03:34 AM (lqeGC)

216 "1 I miss Scalia"

Shall we gather at the oulet
The beautiful factory outlet
Shall we gather at the outlet
Judge-spotting for Tony the Ess.

Posted by: Lord Prufrock Brothyjest at March 30, 2016 03:39 AM (lqeGC)

217 "4 The only bright side, and its fairly dim, is that the ruling cannot be used to set precedent."

Since when did precedent matter at any time over the last 20 years at least? What the Conservative Majority on the SCOTUS has achieved by ignoring precedent ever since Souter retired is handed right back to the coming Liberal Majority carte blanche to restore the New Deal.

And THAT'S what comes at ignoring precedent: no firewall against it being restored as the last gasp in a Reconquista.

Posted by: Lord Prufrock Brothyjest at March 30, 2016 03:50 AM (lqeGC)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0285 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0122 seconds, 225 records returned.
Page size 119 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.