|
If Janus overrules Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and says that everyone doesn't have to pay union dues, does this mean that unions only have to represent dues-paying members? My understanding is that the reasoning in Abood was that since everyone benefits, everyone has to pay.
Ardlen fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 28, 2017 |
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fact that there is such a big difference between Public and Private Universities based on an ever decreasing amount of tax money is lame.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
You could also make the argument that when voter suppression happens, those states should start losing Representatives based on the 14th, but that's equally unlikely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Or you could just completely ignore it. Congress was deadlocked after the 1920 census. So they just let the 1910 census stand for 23 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
If this goes through and the Title VII protections are removed, could a company choose to fire people for not being LGBTQ?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Question - are these Reader's Digest versions too long (should I try to condense the arguments yet more), or is this about right to give a sense of the arguments that are in play?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 07:16
|
|
|
Has Article 14 ever been enforced, where if you do voter suppression your population is considered to be lower and you start losing Representatives?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
If Texas pushes too hard, New Mexico can just not store water, leaving Texas to deal with the excess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:That oyster case is fascinating. Florida has spent ten years trying to scapegoat Georgia for its oyster collapse when their own witnesses can't even back up that argument. Why were they even bothering to waste the money at that point?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:Is it though? What’s the constitutional authority that a state can’t legalize murder? Nobody has done it because that’s insane, but… Ardlen fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
So with this ruling, if hypothetically the Speaker led a coup that killed off the President and Vice President, they'd be the legal president unless Congress passed a law (which the newly anointed coup President can veto) saying it was an insurrection? I guess the same holds true for anyone in the line of succession.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 03:30
|
|