Skip to main content

View Diary: The fight against Michigan's anti-union bill isn't over (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Question (0+ / 0-)

    Prop 8 in California is going before the Supreme Court because "once you have a law it can't be taken away from you."  Can this also apply in this case?

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:22:20 AM PST

    •  This is completely different (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MGross

      There is no civil right for a union to force membership on people who don't want it.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:40:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I realize my phrasing might not... (0+ / 0-)

        ...have been optimal, but this case is entirely different from California's case where an actual civil right is in question.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:47:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rosalie - short answer is no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      Your comment oversimplifies the Prop 8 issue before the Court. If you think about broad application of your principle many laws could never be changed. RTW laws are constitutional, if they are passed by state legislators, unless a state constitution specifically prohibits them.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:41:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We don't know why Court is hearing Prop 8 (0+ / 0-)

      That argument (a right once granted cannot be revoked) was given by the 9th Circuit in striking down Prop 8. If the Supreme Court agreed, then that was no reason to hear the case at all.  Either the liberals want the argument extended on marriage equality nationally, or the conservatives want to stop it from spreading any further.  As written the Ninth Circuit opinion only applied to CA, as only CA permitted marriage equality and then had it revoked via initiative modifying the state constitution.

      Note that the SCs gave themselves an out by asking the parties to address whether the pro-Prop 8 group even has standing to argue the case.  So they could still punt, but if they wanted to, there was no need to grant certiorari at all.

      I don't know enough about the MI law to discuss whether it hits any Federal issues. I'll leave that to the attorneys.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site