Categories

Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

Brian Beutler’s article attempts to make the case that Republicans might ultimately lose if the Supreme Court upholds today’s ruling:

An adverse Supreme Court ruling would throw the ACA into chaos in three dozen states, including huge states like Florida and Texas. The vast majority of beneficiaries in those states would be suddenly unable to afford their premiums (and might even be required to reimburse the government for unlawful subsidies they’ve already spent). Millions of people would drop out of the insurance marketplaces. Premiums would skyrocket for the very sick people who need coverage the most.

But that’s where the conservatives’ “victory” would turn into a big political liability for red- and purple-state Republicans. An adverse ruling would create a problem that could be fixed in two ways: With an astonishingly trivial technical corrections bill in Congress, or with Healthcare.gov states setting up their own exchanges. If you’re a Republican senator from a purple Healthcare.gov state—Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and others—you’ll be under tremendous pressure to pass the legislative fix. If you’re a Republican governor in any Healthcare.gov state, many thousands of your constituents will expect you to both pressure Congress to fix the problem, and prepare to launch your own exchange.

Conservatives would like to believe that they could just leave something as deeply rooted as Obamacare permanently hobbled, or that they could use the ensuing chaos as leverage, to force Democrats to reopen the books, and perhaps gut the law in other ways. I think they’re miscalculating. Just as government shutdowns and debt default threats don’t create leverage because the public doesn’t support inviting chaos in pursuit of unrelated goals, I don’t think an adverse ruling in Halbig will create leverage for the GOP.

I think Beutler isn’t just wrong about the leverage. I think he’s kidding himself if he thinks this puts Republicans in a difficult position.

By the time the Supreme Court rules on this lawsuit, it’s quite possible that there will be Republican majorities in the House and Senate. If that’s the case, think of this scenario:

Congress might well change Section 36B as part of a bigger bill that’s sure to include other provisions that Republicans like and that President Obama doesn’t like.

For instance, a new bill might include a change to 36B along with a change that eliminates the medical device tax, another change that changes the definition of a Qualified Health Plan, aka QHP, and a change that reduces the penalties for the employer and individual mandates.

Employers and families would certainly love a tiny penalty for not obeying the law. Young people would love being able to buy a catatrophic policy with a HSA to cover other expenses. There’s no question that eliminating the medical device tax would make medical device manufacturers happy.

At that point, President Obama signs the bill that’s essentially a fresh start that dramatically improves the ACA or he vetoes a popular bill that forces families to pay higher insurance premiums, that doesn’t repeal an unpopular tax and he alienates major parts of his base. In my opinion, that’s ‘Rock meets hard place’ territory for President Obama. The good news is that it’s great news for employers, families and young people.

All that’s required is for Republicans to pass a bill that’s filled with popular provisions. Since a majority of people don’t like the bill’s specifics, that shouldn’t be that difficult.

Finally, Beutler insists that this is judicial activism. There’s nothing activist about the DC Circuit’s ruling. They said that Section 36B meant what it said. For the record, here’s the specific language of Section 36B:

monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The judiciary’s first responsibility is to determine whether a law is constitutional. If it passes that test, the next test is to determine whether the statute gives the executive branch the authority to take action.

In this instance, the DC Circuit ruled that the ACA didn’t give the executive branch, in this case the IRS, the authority to change a major provision of the statute.

It isn’t radical to think that the executive branch doesn’t have the authority to rewrite specific provisions of existing statutes. If the Supreme Court validates this ruling and if President Obama wants that provision changed, there’s a simple remedy: work with Congress to change that part of the ACA.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This op-ed, written by Paul Kersey of the Illinois Policy Institute, revisits the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Harris v. Quinn lawsuit. Here’s one of the key parts of Mr. Kersey’s op-ed:

Suburban Chicago mom Pamela Harris, whose youngest child has a rare genetic disorder, was one of the parents targeted for union membership. Because she would rather stay home full-time to care for her son than put him in a state facility or child care center, she qualified for a Medicaid benefit from the state worth about $25,000 per year. But the unions wanted a cut of this money.

Harris didn’t want to join the union, so she joined other families who already paid forced dues in a lawsuit challenging the scheme. In siding with Harris against the state of Illinois and SEIU last month, the high court addressed a point raised by the Illinois Policy Institute in an amicus brief: Paying dues to a union should not be a condition of receiving help from the state to care for a loved one.

I’d love hearing the SEIU or AFSCME explain how the person who a) cares for a person getting a government assistance check, b) is self-employed or c) is the parent of the person getting a government assistance check is a government worker.

Let’s follow this logically. According to SEIU’s thinking, a middle class person who takes care of their child isn’t a government employee but a person who cares for their child who gets an assistance check is a government employee.

Further, again according to SEIU’s thinking, small business owners who provide child care services aren’t government employees but child care providers who care for families that get government assistance are government employees.

That logic is tortured at best.

For instance, when a person works as a PR/communications person in a government department, there’s an organizational chart that shows where in the chain they rank and who they report to. How would an organizational chart look if a small business owner who is hired by a parent who gets government assistance is considered a government employee? Further, why would the small business owner be the government employee subject to paying union dues or a fair share fee but the person getting government assistance be a private citizen who isn’t subject to paying union dues or fair share fees?

This is the key point in Mr. Kersey’s op-ed:

Even if the SEIU wins its election, its new members won’t be forced to pay dues.

That’s the part that gives me the biggest smile. They’re expending all this effort knowing that a huge percentage of PCAs and in-home child care providers will say ‘no thanks’ to paying dues or fair share fees.

One of SEIU’s and AFSCME’s arguments is that they’ll provide training for these workers. As Hollee Saville told me, they already have access to tons of training. Most of these programs are either free or exceptionally inexpensive.

Surely, union operatives will attempt to characterize me as anti-union. Those operatives are wrong. I’m just opposed to unions telling private sector employers that they’re public sector employees.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

The Democrats must think that they have to push their fake War on Women meme. This week, it’s TakeAction Minnesota’ Dan McGrath’s turn to push that dishonest meme:

The Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn rulings handed down by the Supreme Court’s conservative and male majority lay bare exactly what they value. And it’s not caring for each other. Nor is it a woman’s right to make her own decisions. Instead, these justices value ever-expanding corporate power at the expense of working people and believe that women, and the professions they lead, are worth less than others. In ruling as they did on two very disparate topics, these five men have launched an assault on women in the workplace. But it’s workers and their families who should be concerned.

In the Hobby Lobby ruling, the conservative majority took the absurd notion that corporations are people one step further. In its earlier Citizens’ United ruling, these justices granted corporations the right of free speech, and thus the ability to spend limitless amounts of money in elections. Now, these same justices have established corporate religious freedom, and the right to refuse women contraception. As the power of corporations expands, a woman’s ability to decide what is in her own best interest is diminished. That this ruling applies to “closely held” corporations means that as much as 52 percent of the American workforce may be affected.

First, I’d love hearing where the First Amendment only pertains to individuals. I still haven’t heard a Democrat point to the part of this text that says the First Amendment’s protections only pertain to individuals:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment talks about “the right of people peaceably to assemble.” Otherwise, there’s no hint on whether they thought the First Amendment should apply only to individuals.

What compelling case can Democrats make that the political speech of corporations is less legitimate than the political speech of individuals? Should LLCs with 3 owners be allowed to express their political beliefs but corporations with 50 stockholders be prohibited from expressing their political beliefs? If Democrats think that, why do they think that?

Hobby Lobby simply said that they’d offer insurance that covered 16 forms of contraceptives, not 20. Am I to think that women are incapable of making the right decision in that situation? Further, should I think that women working at Hobby Lobby can’t afford to pay for the other types of contraceptives? After all, they make twice the rate of minimum wage.

What right do women have to have their contraceptives paid for? If I received $10 for each time I’ve heard the left talk about reproductive rights are a woman’s private decision, I’d be wealthy and then some. If it’s that private, then women should bear some of that responsibility.

Finally, why should government tell people that they can’t practice their faith? The First Amendment certainly promises people that government can’t tell them how to practice their faith. That’s one of the biggest reasons why people left Europe.

In Harris v. Quinn the same five justices ruled that workers who provide care to children, the elderly and disabled are only partial government workers and, therefore, can opt out of paying union dues, even if they benefit from workplace protections obtained by a union. While public employee unions are already finding ways to adapt, this is a serious blow to their strength. But it’s an even bigger blow to care providers, 90 percent of whom in Minnesota are women, many of whom are women of color.

In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court said that small business owners have the right to determine who represents them in petitioning the legislature. In fact, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits business owners from belonging to a union. The high court decided that small business owners aren’t public employees, at least in the sense that a PR person for a public agency is a public employee.

This is pure BS:

Homecare is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. But the wages these workers earn are paltry. The average wage of non-union caregivers is $9-11 per hour. In Illinois, whose homecare union was the subject of the court case, wages are $13 per hour. By limiting the power of these workers to bargain for better wages and set higher professional standards workers and those they serve lose out. While anyone who depends on a caregiver knows their work is priceless, these five justices are saying that work in the home is less valuable than other male dominated professions.

That’s a non sequitur argument. Child care provider establish their rates independent of government. If they want to negotiate a raise for themeselves, they negotiate with the parents who get the check. They don’t negotiate with the commissioner of Human Services.

If they think that government should spend more money on this assistance, then they petition for higher assistance rates. When they do that, they’re the ones who determine whether they should hire a lobbyist, a trade organization, join a union or just lobby the legislature themselves. That’s their decision alone.

The unions are dishonest in saying the Supreme Court is anti-women. That’s insulting. They aren’t anti-women. They’re just pro-Constitution. The dirty little secret is that unions don’t care about women. They see unionizing them as their best opportunity to gain more political clout.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Hollee Saville just published this information on her Facebook page:

With breakneck speed, the BMS has set the mail-ballot election for SEIU’s attempted unionization of home care providers to begin on Friday, August 1. DHS and SEIU are prohibited from the unfair labor and election practices for which SEIU is often known. If you are threatened, coerced, or harassed in any way, please contact the police and the BMS and please let us know so we can keep a record of it. Please share this information with EVERY PCA you know so that they know that they can vote NO to unionize.

We are trying to set up mailings and phone calls to inform PCAs. If you would like to help with this, please let Hollee know.

Here’s the important “fine print”:

Ballots will be mailed to each eligible employee at the home address supplied by the State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, together with a letter of explanation and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope.

Ballots will be mailed on Friday, August 1, 2014, and must be returned to the Bureau of Mediation Services, 1380 Energy Lane, Suite 2, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-5253, in the envelopes furnished for that purpose in order to be counted.

Any eligible employee who has not received their ballot by Friday, August 8, 2014, must personally call the Bureau at (651) 649-5421 and request that a second ballot be mailed to them.

All ballots must be returned to the Bureau office no later than 4:30 pm on Monday, August 25, 2014.

http://mn.gov/bms/ELECTION–HOME%20HEALTH%20CARE%20PROVIDERS%20Order.pdf

To say that Hollee and others aren’t sitting still is understatement. To say that the DFL, SEIU and AFSCME don’t get it that this will hurt them this November is understatement. I published 4 articles written by child care providers who are Democrats who oppose SEIU’s and AFSCME’s unionization drive. See here, here, here and here.

After the Harris v. Quinn ruling, SEIU and AFSCME said that the ruling wouldn’t prevent them from continuing their organizing drive. This news is proof they meant what they said. The thing is that the Harris v. Quinn ruling didn’t say they couldn’t organize. The heart of that ruling said that PCAs and others who are quasi-government employees couldn’t be forced into paying dues or fair share fees.

This organizing drive is just reminding these small business owners that the DFL doesn’t listen to them, that the DFL only listens to the special interests write big checks for their campaigns. The so-called party of the people is really the party of, by and for the elitists and special interests.

This organizing drive is proof that the DFL will always give a higher priority to bigger campaign contributions than it puts on doing the right thing. That’s a sickening thought.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Schultz’s post about the Hobby Lobby ruling is stunningly dishonest, especially considering he’s a lawyer. Here’s Dr. Schultz’s dishonesty:

Five votes. Five Catholics. Five men. One decision. Potentially millions of American women denied contraceptive coverage.

Dr. Schultz should be ashamed of himself for making that dishonest statememt. The Hobby Lobby ruling didn’t say closely held companies like Hobby Lobby could deny all types of contraceptive coverage. It said that the ACA couldn’t force Hobby Lobby to provide coverage for 4 types of contraceptives known as abortifacients. Megyn Kelly explained in this video:

Here’s Kelly’s explanation of the Hobby Lobby ruling:

MEGYN KELLY: Nancy Pelosi either doesn’t know what she is talking about or is intentionally misleading you. First of all the gender of the justices in the Hobby Lobby majority is irrelevant. Mrs. Pelosi’s reference to it is obviously an attempt to stoke resentment. When Roe vs. Wade was decided it was all men in the majority. Does she think those justices were ill-equipped to fairly decide that case? Or is it only when a judge disagrees with Mrs. Pelosi that his gender is an issue. If Speaker john Boehner made a similar comment about the female Supreme Court justices, Nancy Pelosi would be crying sexism and that’s what she is guilty of here.

Moreover, the five men in the Hobby Lobby majority did not, I repeat, did not “determine what contraceptions are legal” nor they did get down to the specifics of “whether a woman should use a diaphragm.” What a gross misrepresentation. News flash, all birth control that was legal before this decision remains legal today. The high court simply found that a religious freedom law which was cosponsored by none other than, wait for it, Nancy Pelosi, sometimes protects corporations from being forced to violate their religious beliefs. She cosponsored the law that gave them the right!

Neither the high court or Hobby Lobby took issue with Kathleen Sebelius’s minions over at HHS mandating behind closed doors after Obamacare was passed, that companies cover birth control. Sixteen forms of it in fact. But the majority did say Hobby Lobby still had the right to object to covering four terms of birth control that happen to terminate a fertilized egg, which some believe is abortion. No one ruled those contraceptives were illegal and the diaphragm was never even discussed. It wasn’t one of the birth control forms at issue, which she should know since she famously promised us that after Obamacare was passed at some point, we’d know what was in it.

Either Dr. Schultz didn’t read the ruling or he’s intentionally being dishonest. Based on what he said later in the post, I’m betting that he’s being intentionally dishonest. Here’s what he said later in the post:

So think first about the sexism of the decision. Five male Justices rule that it is ok for an employer to deny women contraceptive coverage.

Again, that statement is dishonest. In fact, if Dr. Schultz had done his research, which he obviously didn’t, he’d know that Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan has covered contraceptives long before the ACA was passed. They just didn’t cover abortifacients.

At this point, I don’t know whether Dr. Schultz is an ill-informed scholar or if he’s a political hatchetman spewing the DFL’s chanting points. At this point, both are definite possibilities. Later, Dr. Schultz said this:

When the First Amendment was written it declared that “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.”

Like most liberals, Dr. Schultz didn’t include the full text. Here’s that text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the First Amendment proposed a balance on religion. First, it said that the government couldn’t declare a denomination as the national religion. Their intent was to prevent the government from telling religious institutions what their beliefs should be.

The next clause in the First Amendment says that government can’t prohibit people from living their faith. Dr. Schultz says that “RFRA and the five Justice majority appear to have” established a religion. I’d pose a contrarian question. Didn’t the HHS essentially tell people that they didn’t have the right to practice their religious faith? How is it ok for government bureaucrats to tell people of faith that they can’t live out their faith but it’s wrong for the Supreme Court to protect a company’s First Amendment rights?

Dr. Schultz’s hypocrisy is disappointing. He’s substituted his political beliefs when he should be rendering a constitutional opinion. By doing that, he’s lost credibility.

Techorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

AFSCME’S statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn is exceptionally defensive sounding:

“No court case can stand in the way of millions of women who help us raise our children and care for our aging parents,” said Eliot Seide, director of AFSCME Council 5. “Child care providers and home care workers will continue to have a strong voice for good jobs and quality care for their consumers. This decision doesn’t stop them from organizing and collectively bargaining with states.”

AFSCME and the SEIU can bargain with state governments all they want. They just can’t collect dues from people who don’t want to be part of the union. The ruling did nothing to prevent collective bargaining. It just said that people who aren’t directly employed by the government aren’t government employees.

“This attack on worker rights is bankrolled by billionaires and big corporations to enrich themselves at the expense of hardworking Americans,” added Seide. The Harris case was brought by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an extreme anti-worker group funded by the Koch brothers and the Walton family.

I’d love hearing Seide explain how “billionaires and big corporations” get rich because of this ruling. I think Seide’s making this stuff up for political consumption to excite his base. If union workers don’t turn out in massive numbers for the DFL this fall, the DFL will take a bigtime hit.

“We won’t let right-wing extremists rob us of our rights,” said Clarissa Johnston, a pro-union child care provider from Mounds View. “Justice won’t be served until child care providers can vote on whether we want a union. When providers choose to join a union, we gain a voice on the job. We pay our dues to make our union strong. That gives us the power to get the fair compensation we deserve. We close the income gap and we lift our families out of poverty.”

Actually, unions pay dues to get Democrats elected. The notion that these union leaders are great altruists is silly.

“We unite to lift up our profession and prepare Minnesota’s poorest children for school and success in life,” said Marline Blake, a pro-union child care provider from Minneapolis. “Our union has helped to secure pre-school scholarships that make child care affordable for working parents. We provide training in first aid and CPR, child nutrition and safe infant sleep practices. Any court case that tries to stop our union is hurting the families who depend on us to keep their kids healthy, learning and safe.”

Consider this the unions’ best qualifications argument. It isn’t persuasive, though it’s dripping with chutzpah. Insisting that unionized child care providers are the only child care providers providing quality care is insulting the high quality non-unionized child care providers doing a fantastic job.

“We won’t rest until every worker has a voice on the job,” said Seide. “It’s the only proven way for caregivers to improve their lives and the lives of the families in their care.”

The women who run these in-home child care facilities are part entrepreneur, part teacher and part supervisor. That’s before mentioning a lengthy list of other qualifications these ladies bring to the table.

I’d triple dog dare Seide to tell these anti-union child care providers to their face that unionized child care providers are the only qualified providers.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Those of us old enough to recall Richard Nixon’s time in office know that he didn’t respect the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment. That wasn’t the only way he broke the law but it’s certainly the most famous. That being said, this president is the greatest scofflaw-in-chief in American history because he just doesn’t care about the Constitution or the Supreme Court.

Even liberal constitutional law professors like Jonathan Turley are noticing:

The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court late last month that President Obama violated the separation of powers in appointing officials is the type of decision that usually concentrates the mind of a chief executive. Obama, however, appeared to double down on his strategy — stating in a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday that he intended to expand, not reduce, his use of unilateral actions to circumvent Congress. Summing up his position, the President threw down the gauntlet at Congress: “So sue me.”

This is just the latest proof that this president doesn’t give a damn about the rule of law or the Constitution. Apparently, he thinks he’s America’s king. Institutions like the Supreme Court and the Constitution don’t mean much to him.

Those things don’t mean much to Eric Holder, his Attorney General:

On June 26, in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, all nine Justices ruled that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB violated the Constitution.

Not only did Obama’s own judicial appointees vote against him (including his former solicitor general), but the majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, a liberal stalwart of the Court.

The Administration also lost United State v. Wurie, in which the Holder Justice Department claimed that the police and federal authorities did not need a search warrant to seize all of the information stored in the cellphone of someone who had been arrested.

Putting this in more schoolyard terms, the Obama administration and Eric Holder have gotten their butts kicked when facing the Supreme Court. The number of unanimous decisions that’ve gone against President Obama’s administration is the highest in history.

Let’s summarize these cases. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, President Obama, the CEO of the executive branch, argued that he, not the Senate Majority Leader, should determine when the Senate was in session. In US v. Wurie, Holder argued that the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply to cell phones. (That rationale escapes me entirely.) In both cases, the Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that “the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office” and his attorney general were wrong.

In fact, there have been 20 such cases during this administration — and even more if you include cases in which the administration filed an amicus brief, such as in McCullen v. Coakley, the free-speech case that was handed down the same day as the recess appointments case.

The Obama administration filed an amicus brief in that case supporting the Massachusetts law in question and helped argue the case before the Supreme Court.

But all nine justices found the Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot “buffer” zone around abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment by restricting speech in public areas “that have historically been open to the public for speech activities.”

Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of scofflaw:

a person who flouts the law, especially one who fails to pay fines owed.
a person who flouts rules, conventions, or accepted practices.

That definition fits President Obama perfectly. The constitutional law professor at George Washington University disagreed with the “constitutional scholar in the Oval Office”:

In our system, there is no license to go it alone. Rather, the Republic’s democratic architecture requires compromise. The process is designed to moderate legislation and create a broader consensus in support of these laws.

Nor is congressional refusal to act on a particular prescription of how to fix the economy or repair immigration laws an excuse. Sometimes the country (and by extension Congress) is divided.

When that happens, less gets done. The Framers understood such times. They lived in such a time.

Moderation isn’t this president’s hallmark. Apparently, ignoring the Constitution this president’s hallmark.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to presidential arrogance, President Obama sits atop Mount Olympus. After the Supreme Court slapped him down on making recess appointments, DC pundits speculated whether President Obama would display a little humility. I knew that he isn’t given to humility. Further, I know that he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. This video shows that he doesn’t respect the greatest governing document devised in the history of mankind:

Here’s part of what President Obama said:

And this obstruction keeps the system rigged for those who are doing fine a the very top. It prevents us from helping more middle class families. And as long as they insist on taking no action whatsoever to help anybody, I’m going to keep taking actions on my own to help the middle class, like the actions I’ve already taken to speed up construction projects, attract new manufacturing jobs and lift workers’ wages. It helps students pay off their student loans. And they criticize me for this. Boehner sued me for this. And I told him I’d rather do things when you pass some laws. Make sure the Highway Trust Fund is funded so we don’t have to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers. It’s not that hard.

That’s just part of the speech. Frankly, I couldn’t take more of President Obama’s imperial tone. First, that minute of his speech is riddled with lies, starting with him saying that Speaker Boehner having sued him. It’s true that Speaker Boehner announced that he’ll sue President Obama but it wasn’t because President Obama took action to “speed up construction projects.”

Frankly, the legislative branch doesn’t have the authority to “speed up construction projects.” Only the executive branch can speed up the bid-letting process.

Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit will be focused on President Obama’s insistence that he be able to rewrite laws that he’s signed without working with Congress. That’s what I’d expect of Third World dictators, not the president of the United States.

That’s before talking about President Obama’s supposed actions that “help the middle class.” Mr. President, where’s the proof that your policies have helped the middle class? Economic growth was weak for 5 years before tanking the last quarter. Longterm unemployment is the highest it’s been since the Carter administration. Most of the jobs being created are part-time jobs.

That’s before talking about President Obama’s war on coal, oil and natural gas, not to mention the war he’s waging against states like Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. That’s before talking about how higher electricity prices are hurting states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota and the Rust Belt states.

Mr. President, where’s the proof that you’ve done anything that’s helped the middle class?

President Obama’s policies aren’t great policies. If he was smart like Bill Clinton, which he isn’t, he’d co-opt the Republicans’ ideas. Instead, he insists that his ideas are the only legitimate ideas being offered. That’s laughable. He’s offering more of the same ideas that’ve failed the middle class for the past 6 years.

The only short-term option left for the American people is to elect a Republican majority in the Senate so things can get done. We’ve seen how obstructionist Harry Reid’s been in the Senate. That recipe has failed. Let’s see if changing the dynamics changes the results.

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We’ve been stuck in the Democrats’ obstructionist rut for the last 4 years. It’s time to change directions. That’s the only way we’ll break out of this stagnation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Based on Gov. Dayton’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Harris v. Quinn lawsuit, there’s little doubt but that he’s got quite a temper. Check out his reaction to the ruling:

“By a 5-4 vote the court has voted to roll back the cause of civil rights in America,” he said. “For decades the right to organize has been an accepted mainstream principle in American society. If people can’t vote for themselves to decide if they want to join a union or not, that’s just not democracy.”

First, it’s stunning that Gov. Dayton doesn’t know the Constitution better than this. I’m including the text of the First Amendment for Gov. Dayton’s peronal edification:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Specifically, when the First Amendment say that “Congress shall make no law” that infringes on the people’ right to peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning “Government for a redress of grievances”, it means that the people get to decide who will represent them.

Second, the government, whether at the local, state or federal level, has the right to tell private sector employers that they’re really public sector employees. How dare Gov. Dayton assume that a legislature has the right to reclassify these small businesses as public sector employees. That’s the business owners’ right. Period.

Ken Martin got more than a little upset, too:

But Ken Martin, the chair of Minnesota’s DFL Party, said the decision was devastating.

“The Harris v. Quinn decision diminishes the ability of unions to work with American workers. It’s devastating to think that the gains for wages, benefits and working conditions made by unions during the last century will be jeopardized,” Martin said.

There’s no question that this is a stinging defeat for AFSCME and the SEIU. That being said, it isn’t the end of collective bargaining, which is what Martin is hinting at. Harris v. Quinn simply says that the government can’t tell business owners that they’re public employees.

AFSCME definitely didn’t lose the right to negotiate collective bargaining agreements for correction officers, EMTs or sanitation workers. SEIU Local 26 definitely didn’t lose the right to negotiate on behalf of Minnesota’s Property Services Union.

I strongly suspect that Gov. Dayton’s and Chairman Martin’s statements are meant more to distract union workers from the DFL’s division on mining. By highlighting this, the DFL is hoping Iron Rangers will forget about mining and focus on union solidarity.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

This morning’s ruling in the Harris v. Quinn case is a major setback for public employee unions. First, Harris v. Quinn
is the lawsuit brought by Pamela Harris, a home care giver in Illinois. The ramifications will be felt immediately in Minnesota. GOP gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson issued this statement immediately following the ruling:

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for Minnesota childcare providers and all those who value employment freedom. It was beyond the pale for Governor Dayton to use the livelihoods of hundreds of small businesswomen throughout the state as collateral to pay back his union campaign contributors. I congratulate the brave and determined women who fought back, and I look forward to ensuring this November that Mark Dayton never has the opportunity to do this to them again.”

The Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions can’t collect fees from home health care workers who object to being affiliated with a union. The Court’s decision nearly guarantees that Dayton will lose his lawsuit with Minnesota childcare providers.

This statement was issued by Deputy House Republican Leader Jennifer Loon and Rep. Mary Franson after the ruling:

“Today’s ruling is a welcome relief for Minnesota’s small business owners and hardworking families whose livelihoods were put in jeopardy by Governor Dayton and the Democrat-controlled legislature,” said Loon. “With the annual costs of childcare exceeding the average cost of in-state college tuition and fees, combined with the fact that Democrat legislators refused to give moms and dads with kids in daycare bigger tax refunds this year, Minnesota families simply cannot afford the additional strain that unionization would have imposed on their budgets.”

“The ruling from the Supreme Court today sends a clear signal to Governor Dayton and Democrats in the legislature that they must cease their reckless attempts to force independent childcare providers into a government union. Our children deserve better than to be pawns in a scheme to get more union dues out of hardworking parents” said Franson, a former childcare provider. “Minnesota parents and childcare providers can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing it’s likely that their childcare will not be imperiled by the higher costs and reduced choices of forced unionization.”

This is a major setback for AFSCME and the SEIU. Likewise, it’s a stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature, who passed the law that allowed for unionization elections. Meanwhile, this is certain to cause joy with in-home child care providers.

I got the reaction of in-home child care providers last fall, which I published in a 3-part series. The links are here, here and here.

This has been a terrible week for the Obama administration. It hasn’t been a stellar week for the Dayton administration, either. They both lost on the Harris v. Quinn ruling. Meanwhile, President Obama got spanked when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that his recess appointments were unconstitutional. For Gov. Dayton, his other major loss was the news that MNsure won’t be functional before the next open enrollment.

It’s understatement to say that this hasn’t been a good week for liberals. Combine last week’s SCOTUS rulings with the headwinds slamming Democrats electorally and you’ve got reason to believe that this won’t be a happy election campaign season for Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,