US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9980

On February 27 2018 22:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
???

Supreme Court Ruling Means Immigrants Could Continue To Be Detained Indefinitely

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that immigrants, even those with permanent legal status and asylum seekers, do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

It's a profound loss for those immigrants appealing what are sometimes indefinite detentions by the government. Many are held for long periods of time — on average, 13 months — after being picked up for things as minor as joyriding. Some are held even longer.

Supreme Court Will Re-Hear Immigrant Indefinite Detention Case
THE TWO-WAY
Supreme Court Will Re-Hear Immigrant Indefinite Detention Case
The case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, has implications for legal permanent residents the government wants to deport, because they committed crimes and asylum seekers who are awaiting a court date after turning themselves in at the border. Immigrant advocates contend that many of these immigrants have a right to be free on bail until their case is heard.

But the court wrote in its 5-3 opinion Tuesday, "Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country."

On February 28 2018 02:32 farvacola wrote:
Nah, the big payoff is coming when public sector unions are gutted by a 5-4 opinion in Janus that will deliberately misconstrue the First Amendment in the context of employment contracts.

On February 28 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:

That thing is terrifying and is the ultimate conservative pay off. Never legislate, only win through the slow attrition of the courts.

On February 28 2018 02:58 brian wrote:

any care for either of you to elaborate on your positions here? I think i understand why it’s a stretch from the 1A standpoint but coming from a place of total ignorance i’m very interested in understanding the more logical arguments involved. or if there are any particular good reads i’d appreciate the recommendation.

On February 28 2018 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:
If killing unions kills police unions, it just might be a net benefit. We can always add worker protections in other ways down the road. Killing police unions is uniquely difficult.

On February 28 2018 03:29 xDaunt wrote:
Getting rid of Abood would be great for a bunch of reasons. First and foremost, it's not the government's place to subsidize unions and compel membership in them. If workers want to bargain collectively, let them do it. Nobody is stopping them. The reality is that the public sector unions know that people will not join them unless compelled because the public sector unions have been too damned good at their job. Factoring in pensions and other benefits, public sector employees are too well compensated, which leads me to my next point. Public sector unions need to be kicked in the nuts. The ridiculous compensation arrangements that they have negotiated for their members using taxpayer money is going to cause real problems if not addressed. Current unfunded public pension liability exceeds $6 trillion. These are big fiscal issues that need to fixed, which won't happen if public sector unions keep getting propped up artificially.

On February 28 2018 03:32 hunts wrote:


What would you say they are over compensated in comparison to? CEO's? A livable wage? The need for their job to get done? How hard their job is?

On February 28 2018 03:41 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt points to some problems with public unions. Specifically that poor goverment management has lead to pensions that are not sustainable. But rather than blame the political institution and elected officials that entered these terrible deals for political gain, the blame is placed squarely on the unions and their collective bargaining rights.

Removing the unions ability to collectively bargain will not fix the 6 trillion dollar budgetary shortfall either. That will still be subject to all the standard lawsuits that happen for breaking pension deals. If conservatives wanted to solve the problem, they would update the laws around unions to allow states to enter some sort of bankruptcy process when it is clear the pension are not sustainable. But why do that when you can gut public unions and not have to pay for their retirement for 30 or so years before we go full circle and do this again.

some labor activists and legal scholars have begun sounding the alarm on what they say would be the unintended consequences of the suit, effectively opening up the floodgates for countless lawsuits like the recent ones filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers. If Mark Janus doesn’t have to pay his agency fees because collective bargaining is speech he disagrees with, then collective bargaining is speech. And it can’t be restricted. Indeed, when some of the lazier advocates of Janus lay out the case, they accidentally argue on behalf of unions’ right to free speech. “Because government is both employer and policymaker, collect­ive bargaining by the union is inherently political advocacy and indistinguishable from lobbying,” wrote George Will on Sunday, directly implicating the First Amendment.

On February 28 2018 03:43 xDaunt wrote:

I have plenty of blame for politicians, too. Specifically for democrat politicians who are all-too-happy to accept political contributions from public sector unions and keep the gravy train rolling.