Close
X
Freedom Foundation

Get in touch

Freedom Foundation
Opt Out Today
  • Blogs
  • Staff
  • Donate
  • Join Us
  • Profiting from a Pandemic
  • Why We Fight
  • Cigars
  • SCOTUS Appeals
Freedom Foundation
Opt Out Today
Freedom Foundation

Contact Info

Harris One More Example of Conservative Justices Putting Principle Ahead of Politics

Jeff-7-1-2014.jpg Labor
  • Jeff Rhodes
  • July 1, 2014

Next time you hear some liberal foghorn spouting off about “activist conservatives” on the U.S. Supreme Court – particularly Justice Antonin Scalia – be sure to cite Monday morning’s Harris v. Quinn ruling to them.

Even a cursory look at the language of the decision shows how much the majority longed to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 case that affirmed the constitutionality of so-called “agency shops,” in which workers can be fired for refusing to join the union or at least paying a fee for collective bargaining services.

Just a sampling of the Harris ruling includes these zingers:

  • “The Abood Court’s analysis is questionable on several grounds.”
  • “The First Amendment analysis in Hanson was thin, and Street was not a constitutional decision.”
  •  “…the court fundamentally misun­derstood Hanson’s narrow holding, which upheld the authorization, not imposition, of an agency fee.”
  • “The Abood Court also failed to ap­preciate the distinction between core union speech in the public sec­tor and core union speech in the private sector, as well as the concep­tual difficulty in public-sector cases of distinguishing union expenditures for collective bargaining from those designed for politi­cal purposes.”
  • “Nor does the Abood Court seem to have anticipated the administrative problems that would result in attempting to classify union expenditures as either chargeable or non-chargeable … or the practical prob­lems that would arise from the heavy burden facing objecting non­members wishing to challenge the union’s actions.”
  • “Finally, the Abood Court’s critical “labor peace” analysis rests on the unsupported em­pirical assumption that exclusive representation in the public sector.” 

And yet, when the time came to write an opinion, the majority opted to leave Abood intact. Rather than declaring – as the plaintiffs had asked – that no public employee anywhere could be compelled to join a union or pay a representation fee to one, the court simply decided the plaintiffs in the Harris case were never full-fledged public employees to begin with.

As home healthcare practitioners – in many cases family members being compensated by Medicare for looking after a loved one – the Illinois workers were more like contractors than regular employees, the majority decided. Therefore, there was no need to overturn Abood in this particular case.

Given half a chance to overturn an existing precedent they didn’t like, do you think for one nanosecond the liberals on the court would have demonstrated a similar level of judicial restraint?

Even more noteworthy is that, by all accounts, the swing justice in Harris wasn’t moderate Anthony Kennedy, but Antonin Scalia. Although widely excoriated by liberals as the most conservative – and, by extension, activist – member of the court, Scalia is, in fact, a stickler for original intent.

Regardless of whether the outcome happens to suit his personal political agenda, Scalia always follows the Constitution. Period. No “penumbras and emanations.” Just hard facts.

And this morning, a lot of unions owe their continued existence to that fact.

There’s an old maxim that says you can tell a lot about what a person is capable of doing by listening to what he accuses you of. In a legal context, that means liberals love to accuse conservative justices of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench. But they can never cite real-world examples of cases like Griswold or Roe v. Wade where a conservative ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution and everything in the world to do with personal ideology.

Show me a case like Harris, where the liberal justices didn’t go as far as that they might have just because they couldn’t justify it constitutionally, and I’ll believe both sides are equally activist. Until then, no one can convince me the conservatives don’t hold themselves to a higher standard.

 

Recent Blogs

Telling the truth even to those who don’t want to hear it
February 3, 2023
DeSantis supports teachers, not their union masters
February 2, 2023
Opt-out windows just another way unions flout Janus ruling
February 2, 2023
Union Politics, Dollars Upended the Ohio State House
January 26, 2023
Freedom Foundation Reaction to Washington State Supreme Court Hearing on Capital Gains Tax
January 26, 2023

Press Articles

  • Jul 06 — RedState — Janus at 4: Landmark Labor Ruling Helped but Still Needs to be Enforced More Aggressively

    Read The Article

  • Jun 28 — Ineptocracy Chronicles — Teacher Unions Fund Left Wing Politics

    Read The Article

  • Jun 25 — The Hill — States Should Protect Caregivers' Medicaid Funds from Union Skims

    Read The Article

  • Jun 15 — Legal Newsline — Freedom Foundation: 'Education Union Spent More Money on Political Activities than Worker Representation'

    Read The Article

  • Jun 09 — Southern California Record — LA Superior Court Court Reporter Accuses Union of Forging Her Signature on Membership Card

    Read The Article

  • General Inquiries

    Info@FreedomFoundation.com

    Media Inquiries

    avarner@freedomfoundation.com

    Follow Us

             

    Contact Locations

    Washington:

    360-956-3482
    P.O. Box 552 Olympia,
    WA 98507

    Pennsylvania:

    484-747-6072
    P.O. Box 1069 Kennett Square,
    PA 19348

    California:

    949-954-8914
    1442 E Lincoln Ave #440 Orange,
    CA 92865

    Oregon:

    503-951-6208
    P.O. Box 18146 Salem,
    OR 97305

    Ohio:

    380-207-3901
    P.O. Box 14210 Cincinnati,
    OH 45250

    © 2021 Freedom Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
    Registered 501(c)(3). EIN: 94-3136961