The People’s Republic of China’s government is in a tizzy because some international airlines, on their flight schedules, still don’t refer to “Taiwan” as a part of the PRC. And, like José Jiménez, they don’t want to talk about it.
China has rebuffed a US request for talks about China’s demand for international airlines to start referring to Taiwan as part of China[.]
There’s nothing to discuss, and we shouldn’t be trying.
The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.
Full stop.
Resoundingly so. Janus v AFCME Council 31 is a case originating in Illinois concerning a public service union’s ability to collect a per centage of ordinary union dues—agency fees—from non-union members who work alongside the union’s bargaining unit in for a government agency. A 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Abood v Detroit Board of Education, upheld this ability.
The Court’s opinion (a 5-4 majority) is summarized in the syllabus:
The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.
What Alito actually wrote is even more direct, and he wrote it at the outset of his opinion.
Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.
We upheld a similar law in Abood v Detroit Bd. of Ed….and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. … Abood is therefore overruled.
Alito concluded his opinion even more forcefully.
This procedure [collecting an “agency fee”] violates the First Amendment and cannot continue. Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.
The sad part of this resounding victory for individual liberty is that 5-4 vote; it should have been unanimous. However, the liberal wing of the Court remained buried in its ideology that Government must be the solution. Here, those four Justices held that an individual’s fundamental rights of free speech and free association must be held subordinate to the union’s government-created right to collect dues and “agency fees” from everyone whom it purports to represent in an employment unit.
The free speech problem arises when those agency fees are collected as a condition of employment by a government agency. It isn’t possible for an inherently political entity to not engage in political speech, and so it isn’t possible for any negotiation—including over employment parameters—with that entity to not be inherently political in nature and so consisting of political speech. Thus, forcing payment of an “agency fee” to the “representing” union is forced speech by the individual from whom the “agency fee” is collected.
The free association problem arises from the existence of any forced “agency fee” payment. Such a mandate creates a forced association between the individual from whom the “agency fee” is collected and the union for and by which the money is collected. This association occurs, tautologically, whether or not the individual might otherwise consent to, or actively seek, the association. The forced nature of the association is maximally emphasized by the individual’s demonstrated objection to the association through his conscious decision to not join the union and further by his objection to paying the fee.
It’s unfortunate that the liberal wing does not see any of this.
The ruling can be seen here.
Senator Richard Burr (R, NC), recall, voted against a rescission of $15 billion in unspent money because he wanted to preserve $15 million in unspent money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The good Senator, objecting to The Wall Street Journal having called him out, wrote a Letter to the Editor, explaining himself. The center of his argument is this:
The LWCF isn’t, as you suggest, a “slush fund” or a “land grab.” Nor is it a piggy bank Washington should raid at its convenience. Instead, it is a rare example of an effective government program that costs taxpayers nothing and benefits them entirely.
So, the Senator voted to tank a multi-billion dollar reclama of unspent money over a bit of trivium with a value of a bare one-tenth of one per cent of the total being reclama-ed. Never mind that if the LWCF were all that useful, it would have been spending that pocket change, and that if it were that valuable, it could be restored in the next budget.
In any event, the money, not having been used by the LWCF and having been reclama-ed, would have been lost to the LWCF not at all.
Brilliant.
Sort of. Mostly.
A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s latest ban on travel to the US by people from several Muslim-majority countries, in a ruling Tuesday that hands the White House a victory on one of its most central—and controversial—initiatives.
Small point, and it’s on The Wall Street Journal, not the Supreme Court: it’s not a ban on travel, it’s a moratorium. The moratorium will be lifted on each of those countries when it becomes possible to accurately vet travelers from those countries. A ban is broad and permanent.
A failure of the Court came from the liberal wing. Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote, for instance,
A reasonable observer would conclude that the [ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus….
And
The majority…turn[s] a blind eye to the pain and suffering the [ban] inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.
This is rank, deliberate emotionalism at the expense of rational thought and objective analysis. Sotomayor chose not to demonstrate where the animus exists in the Executive Order, choosing instead to bring in outside material not part of the case or of the EO in question. Campaign rhetoric, which she chose to consider instead of the text in the present case, ceased to have relevance to anything once the election was completed. Even more, bringing in outside material, evaluating a case on things other than the text of the EO, the law, the Constitution is a violation of the Justices’ oath of office: they’re sworn to uphold the law, the Constitution (and EOs executed in accordance with the Constitution), not to uphold other things convenient to them.
Sotomayor also chose to ignore the “pain and suffering” unvetted entry of terrorists and violent criminals “inflict upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”
The larger failure is that this should have been a unanimous decision. The liberal wing of the Court, though, remained mired in their ideology that the text of an Executive Order (or of a law or of the Constitution) is not the only thing before them in any case: extraneous material convenient to their predetermined opinion also must be brought in for support.
Among the proposals the Trump administration has offered for drastically restructuring and shrinking the Federal government is one for privatizing the US’ Postal Service.
Of course, the American Postal Workers Union opposes the move, but that’s just wind in the trees and nothing to take seriously. The union claims that such a move would harm e-commerce and rural America as well as do away with regular mail and package service at affordable costs. Because competition in the market place doesn’t drive down costs or spur innovation. And because we all need our regular, daily fix of junk mail.
The administration’s proposal isn’t yet ready for prime time, though.
A privatized Postal Service could be structured like an investor-owned utility and continue to be regulated by the Postal Regulation Commission or another governmental body, “consistent with the existing models of privatization in Europe,” the plan said.
There’s no need for the postal entity to be a regulated monopoly, nor is there any rational reason to imitate Europe for the sake of imitating Europe.
Either privatize the USPS or don’t, but don’t waste even more money on halvesies.