March 30, 2016
For those who passionately follow government affairs, including actions from the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary, we all know there is a yin and yang of forces that create the fabric of our nation –a complex system of checks and balances that creates a more fair and just society.
One of the key threads throughout that fabric is the political tilt of the judiciary, and another is the faint hope that the constraints of the constitution transcend that political tilt to rein in governmental actors.
When it works properly, it is a dynamic system and bettered by everyone doing their job, fairly and objectively.
Thus, since the case of Freidricks vs. the CA Teachers Association was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, we looked forward to justice being served by the Court ending forced unionization of public employees. The interpretation of the First Amendment should not be subject to political winds.
However, when it comes to forced unionization, it is hard not to see political forces at play in the Courts. The Fredricks decisions — as they worked up to SCOTUS — arguably evidenced that bias.
But SCOTUS’ acceptance of the case for argument this year gave new hope to those who who yearned for proper application of the Constitution to the question of whether citizens could be, forced to join a governmental union.
But when Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of this year, the hope that millions of federal, state and municipal employees would freed from being forced to join a union, as a condition of employment, seemed to die with him.
That fate was confirmed today by a 4-4 tie at SCOTUS, which allowed an erroneous District Court and Circuit Court decision to stand. Continued forced governmental unions remains the law of the land.
We have lots of yin, but apparently very little yang remaining. No one can question that the checks and balances have tilted — perhaps for a very long time — in a radically new direction, one that we find unfortunate.