SCOTUS swats down public sector unions

posted at 11:01 am on June 23, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

I realize that everyone is waiting with worms on their tongues for the big SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, but the highest court has quite a bit of other business on their docket as well. One of those items was resolved this week when the Supremes handed down a 7-2 decision in Knox vs. SEIU. The case revolved around a complaint against the SEIU in California for taking extra “fees” out of the paychecks of workers to fund political campaigns against two ballot measure.

The U.S. Supreme Court sharply criticized public-sector unions for using money from nonmembers to fund special political campaigns, stepping into the intense political debate about such unions and signaling that new constitutional limits may be coming…

“This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., speaking for the court’s majority. “When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union … may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”

On the specifics of the particular losses suffered by Knox and the other plaintiffs, we’re not talking about a lot of money here. In fact, the SEIU only had to refund an amount covering $6.45 per month over a relatively short period. Further, the ruling doesn’t cover union dues, but rather extra “fees” which they take from their members for special circumstances. But the wider implications of this case may be a lot more than pocket change. The full text of the majority decision makes this look like a new precedent. Previously the court has allowed unions to withhold dues or other “fees” and it was incumbent upon the worker to proactively “opt out” of it to avoid paying. The way Alito wrote this makes it sound very much as if unions should have to go and obtain affirmative consent from each worker before any money can be withheld.

The breakdown on the decision probably wasn’t all that surprising. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito were with the majority decision. Sotomayor and Ginsburg voted in favor, but chose not to sign off on Alito’s opinion. Breyer and Kagan dissented. And there’s a bit of interesting insight to be found in Breyer’s dissent.

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

So Breyer, of all people, is suddenly worried about the court looking too political? I was unaware that there were established “seasons” for justice. Also, he seems to vaguely question the constitutionality of ruling on such a case. Really? When you strip away all the pomp and politics and hype, this boils down to a case of somebody taking somebody else’s money without their permission and over their objections. That sounds suspiciously like theft to me, and I don’t think there’s ever been a question of whether or not the states can make theft illegal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Great post Jazz, thanks…

OmahaConservative on June 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

BISHOP!

Mini-14 on June 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Nice article and I had missed part of the ruling that you pointed out about how the decision was written.

Mini-14 on June 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

a case of somebody taking somebody else’s money without their permission and over their objections. That sounds suspiciously like theft to me, and I don’t think there’s ever been a question of whether or not the states can make theft illegal.

Well, Social Security exempted I’m sure.

Breyer is a lunatic. He is so far out of the realm of rational thought its’ scary. That Kagan was the other dissenting vote shows us just how liberal she is going to be for the next 30 years or so.

ButterflyDragon on June 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

we need a lib to step forward and explain to us why we should allow public sector unions again…if you don’t like your job do something else

DanMan on June 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Several cities in my area have decertified SEIU as their representation due to the ever escalating dues.Dues went from $36.00 per month to $90.00 plus 1.5% of your annual salary.This is no small potatoes for a street or sanitation worker making 30,000 per year.SEIU’s greed is going to be their downfall.

jeffinsjvca on June 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Can hardly wait for one of our resident Leftist Bridge Abutment People to tell us that this 7-2 ruling was “Judicial Activism”.

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM

That sounds suspiciously like theft to me, and I don’t think there’s ever been a question of whether or not the states can make theft illegal.

The money being seized, given it’s intended purposes, is equal to political speech. Political speech is being compelled against the wishes of the workers, so it is a clear First Amendment issue.

This is encouraging for future cases, and for ObamaCare being overturned by the court.

Brian1972 on June 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Several cities in my area have decertified SEIU as their representation due to the ever escalating dues.Dues went from $36.00 per month to $90.00 plus 1.5% of your annual salary.This is no small potatoes for a street or sanitation worker making 30,000 per year.SEIU’s greed is going to be their downfall.

jeffinsjvca on June 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Even the wise Latina was wise. Blow me down.

bazil9 on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Great post Jazz, thanks…

OmahaConservative on June 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Yes

whbates on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

A mandate is being struck down? Hmmm…

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes? Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Is this an attempt at humor?

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Freedom of choice.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Is that a joke, tithes to are church are voluntary, no? One doesn’t have to belong to the Mormon church or any other church. Not so of a union in a close shop state.

whbates on June 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Is this an attempt at humor?

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, you’re right.

/

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

…the SEIU requests that instead of paying dues…members send money to the annointed ones campaign…from this point FORWARD!

KOOLAID2 on June 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

The pontifical moralizer Breyer has doubts about the Courts timing and reach? I gather that coercion does Not trouble his lofty mind, but words and priciples fail when coercion is rebuked.
A wonderful decision, union thugs everywhere are stunned, some will probably go out and rob a few banks just to relax and take their knotty little minds off this.

arand on June 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Oh gee, I don’t know Del demented… could it be one is a voluntary charitable contribution given to a cause they believe in verus a forced contribution to a union. You’re right no difference there! Seriously??

lan astaslem on June 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I realize that everyone is waiting with worms on their tongues

Mas teguila, por favor.

Even better, made all states right-to-work so that no employees are forced to be union members. That would make this decision even more effective in reducing unions’ ability to pick pockets for socialism.

WhatNot on June 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Sorry guys, it just doesn’t matter. The current administration will refuse to enforce it and when a Republican president orders it enforced, entrenched Liberal bureacrats slow rolls it until another Dem is in office.

We have become a nation where un-named un-elected clerks decides our laws.

E9RET on June 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Yeah, you’re right./ Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

So the / means it wasn’t an attempt at humor but what passes for a serious observation by your lights. Or something.

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Class-Action Lawsuit! Gloria Alred need to come up in here and make it rain.

stout77 on June 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The loss of the automatic deduction is what freaks out the unions, and had them fighting in WI and OH. The automatic cash stream funds their operation. Once thay have to solicit the monthly dues, or at least get the member to authorize a direct deposit from the member’s checking account, the cash stream slows to a trickle.

The union is faced with the members asking,”What am I getting for this?” In WI, apparently the answer was, “nothing,” given how many people chose to drop out of the teachers’ union.

Wethal on June 23, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Sorry guys, it just doesn’t matter. The current administration will refuse to enforce it and when a Republican president orders it enforced, entrenched Liberal bureacrats slow rolls it until another Dem is in office.

We have become a nation where un-named un-elected clerks decides our laws.

E9RET on June 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Geez! Take the win and move on to the next issue. We have a lot of work to do to fix this country. The public sector unions need to be dismantled and it is beginning.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I don’t worship a union.

upinak on June 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Pressure will build on PEUs. Today, the WSJ reported that a new accounting rule is going into effect Monday, requiring states and municipalities to begin reporting their pension obligations more sensibly. Once the market begins to see how much is owed, look for borrowing costs to increase and look to see a lot of state and local governments to be looking down the barrel of a shotgun.

But, hey, PEUs and the politicians they own are totally awesome.

BuckeyeSam on June 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I don’t worship a union. upinak on June 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Maybe Del does…?

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Justice Breyer is still looking for personal freedom in the Constitution. He hasn’t found it yet, and I don’t think he’s looking that hard.

RBMN on June 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

we need a lib to step forward and explain to us why we should allow public sector unions again…if you don’t like your job do something else

DanMan on June 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

“Unions are a School of Communism” – Vladimir Lenin

Are you conservatives against education, or something?
/

WhatNot on June 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

It has always been the Supreme Court’s role to determine what the law is and, equally as important, where the limits of governmental power exist. If Mr. Justice Breyer believes that Marbury v. Madison was an apolitical decision, he is as ignorant of Constitutional history as President Obama has proven himself to be.

Further, if Mr. Justice Breyer believes that the Supreme Court should not exercise its power if there are “political” issues involved in then he is (1) a hypocrite, and (2) unfit to hold his office.

Why a hypocrite? His dissent in this case seems squarely at odds with one of the themes in his book Active Liberty where he supports public participation in the government process. What could be more affirming of an individual’s right to participate in government than the right to NOT be compelled to support political speech with which you disagreed.

Why unfit? To say the Supreme Court should avoid “political” questions, is to say they should NOT do their job since ALL decisions of the Supreme Court are political at some level. As a result, he has shown he is unwilling to do his job or, more likely, is unwilling to allow others to do theirs when the outcome disagrees with his personal beliefs.

As an aside, given that Breyer, Obama, and Warren all passed through the hallowed halls of Harvard, I can only conclude that Harvard offers a piss-poor education.

EdmundBurke247 on June 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

I’m sure he will remember this in the equally intense health care debate.

ChrisL on June 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Another small step in the right direction

jazzuscounty on June 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Dues went from $36.00 per month to $90.00 plus 1.5% of your annual salary.

jeffinsjvca on June 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

*boggles* I’d be furious.

Midas on June 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

That is rich. It’s almost like Breyer is afraid of hurting peoples’ feelings by *gasp* ruling on a controversial subject. Of course, you have to expect such incoherence from Breyer, and (as ButterflyDragon noted) we a now seeing similar partisanship from Kagan – unfortunately, she will be with us for a very long time…

KS Rex on June 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Tithing is strictly voluntary.
This is organized crime.

Bubba Redneck on June 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I realize that everyone is waiting with worms on their tongues…

Thank you for that visual, Jazz.

Good luck to me getting that out of my head.

Can I dispose of the worms next week if the Supremes execute Obamacare?

turfmann on June 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

What surprised me plenty is Wide Latina joining the majority. She might be in Obama’s corner when minorities are involved but on all other issues, she was more reasonable that a raving lunatic liberal she looked like.

Archivarix on June 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Jazz, in the last few weeks you’ve been hitting your Hot Air stride.
Well done.

diogenes on June 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Sorry guys, it just doesn’t matter. The current administration will refuse to enforce it and when a Republican president orders it enforced, entrenched Liberal bureacrats slow rolls it until another Dem is in office.

We have become a nation where un-named un-elected clerks decides our laws.

E9RET on June 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I’m sure this decision will be as effectively enforced as the Beck Decision was. Which is to say, NOT.

iurockhead on June 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Okay, Jazz, I’m from the South and thought I’d heard every turn of phrase, but “worms on their tongues” is a new one.

MustLoveBlogs on June 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM

What surprised me plenty is Wide Latina joining the majority. She might be in Obama’s corner when minorities are involved but on all other issues, she was more reasonable that a raving lunatic liberal she looked like.

Archivarix on June 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That and even RBG on the right side shows you what a flamer kagan is.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM

In fact, this ruling is virtually identical to the Beck Decision, which states that dues from non-union members can only be used for matters related to collective bargaining IF the worker opts out of everything but those bargaining costs. Never enforced, and notification that was required to be posted in union shop was pulled under Clinton.

iurockhead on June 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Never enforced, and notification that was required to be posted in union shop was pulled under Clinton.

iurockhead on June 23, 2012 at 11:46 AM

President Romney will make sure they are enforced.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I am unaware that the Mormon church garnishes or is in the habit of coercing tithes from their members. I as a Southern Baptist choose to tithe because I believe it’s Biblical, but it’s not coerced.

The SEIU was taking money from its members without permission and using it for causes offensive to some members. This is not what I’ve experienced as happening with my tithe and the Mormons can probably say the same thing.

AubieJon on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Okay, Jazz, I’m from the South and thought I’d heard every turn of phrase, but “worms on their tongues” is a new one.

MustLoveBlogs on June 23, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Delete

Oh, COME ON, guys! “Waiting with worms on your tongue.”

“Waiting with baited breath… ”

#rimshot

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I hope we see more of these decisions – the conservatives on the Court are much, much stronger intellectually than the liberals, which have been getting weaker and weaker since they are not chosen by their merit. All that the conservatives on the Court need to do is convince, with their superior reasoning, one or two liberals and you have a majority. Not a big fan of Bush, but he did pick some good conservatives (with a lot convincing, I know). Decisions by the president for justices have long lasting effects. We will need to remind Mitt about this too, I suspect.

daj on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

i love alito…awesome baby

can you imagine if a conservative leaning company decided to take some monies out of your paycheck to pay for political campaigns,the 24.7 outrage from the left would explode…but because its unions….meh

cmsinaz on June 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I never heard of that either

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

She might be in Obama’s corner when minorities are involved but on all other issues, she was more reasonable that a raving lunatic liberal she looked like.

Archivarix on June 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Yea, that caught me by surprise as well. I have read a couple of her arguments and was surprised at how rational and reasonable they were. I have actually started to wonder if Justice Sotomayor might actually turn out to be the First justice nominated to the SCOTUS who was expected by everyone to be a liberal, who turned out to be a conservative. Conservatives have been burned at least a dozen times by justices who were expected to be conservative but turned out to be liberals. You just got to know that sooner or later the liberals have to get burned the same way.

SWalker on June 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

SEIU’s greed is going to be their downfall.

jeffinsjvca on June 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

indeed

purple shirts unite!
/

cmsinaz on June 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I realize that everyone is waiting with worms on their tongues

prolly a bit nore benign than calimari sperm…

DanMan on June 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Never heard of it. Where did you grow up?

OmahaConservative on June 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I don’t worship a union.

upinak on June 23, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I think Del has perhaps inadvertently made the point that unions are a substitute religion that are every bit as bad as the worst cult.

pedestrian on June 23, 2012 at 11:52 AM

The unions want to keep automatic deduction of dues? Sort of like the government automatically deducts taxes. And for the same reasons.

Kaffa on June 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Dues went from $36.00 per month to $90.00 plus 1.5% of your annual salary.

jeffinsjvca on June 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Don’t forget that WE are paying their salaries so all of it comes out of OUR pockets. Isn’t that just awesome?

Key West Reader on June 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

the Progressive gift that keeps on giving.

Possum Holler shrugs.

PappyD61 on June 23, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I never heard of that either

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Me, neither. (Waving to my HA bud, Rick.)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Double D went bishing and hooked a few.

boardy9 on June 23, 2012 at 12:05 PM

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

Breyer sounds as if he received his opinion from the WH.

boardy9 on June 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

All I can say is wow! Abortion is in the Constitution, but personal property rights are not! The world liberals live in must be filled unicorns.

Kjeil on June 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Me, neither. (Waving to my HA bud, Rick.)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM

VR waves back.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

“The debate about public unions’ collective bargaining rights is currently intense,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a dissent. “There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it.”

Breyer sounds as if he received his opinion from the WH.

boardy9 on June 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Breyer sounds to me like he’s a little testy about the coming Obamacare decision. Tea leaves?

Rational Thought on June 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM

…and look what the idiots’ lessons are

“The state is taking money that it should have paid into my retirement but didn’t, and it’s giving it away in tax breaks to corporations,” said Steve Curran, a corrections officer from Connecticut.

They learned nothing.

“President Obama and Vice President Biden are the only choice for the 99 percent of us,” he said.

YOU are NOT the 99%rs you fools. Someone who produces and pays taxes pays for you. There are not enough millio- and billionaires.

Medis, suffocate for not enlightening these fools.

Looters, all sontaneously combust, you god damned scum of the Earth.

Moochers, you are only exploited for votes, you morons.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Media, suffocate

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Don’t forget that WE are paying their salaries so all of it comes out of OUR pockets. Isn’t that just awesome?

Key West Reader on June 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Tell me about it, Key. We have friends who are PEU members. Whenever I try to reason with them, asking why my tax dollars should pay for their pensions & health care benefits, they attack with the most astounding circular reasoning I’ve ever heard.

Yeah, it’s awesome alright. /

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Etymological lesson of the day:

It’s “bated breath” and it has nothing to do with “bait.” It’s a shortened form of abated, and comes from Shakespeare….

Link

notropis on June 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Looters, all sontaneously combust, you god damned scum of the Earth.

Moochers, you are only exploited for votes, you morons.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I do have to say that it is with extreme pleasure watching these people colapse under their own weight.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM

The way Alito wrote this makes it sound very much as if unions should have to go and obtain affirmative consent from each worker before any money can be withheld.

One can hope.

This is the way all unions dues should be paid. In fact, employers should not withhold union dues under any circumstances. That is a contract between the union member and the union.

People should pay their union dues out of their personal checking accounts, or in cash, or by cashiers check, etc. If someone does not pay that is the union’s problem, not the employer’s problem.

farsighted on June 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Etymological lesson of the day:

It’s “bated breath” and it has nothing to do with “bait.” It’s a shortened form of abated, and comes from Shakespeare….

Link

notropis on June 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I appreciate a good etymological lesson as much as the next person, but gee whiz, did you have to go and rain on our parade? (lol)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Breyer sounds to me like he’s a little testy about the coming Obamacare decision. Tea leaves?

Rational Thought on June 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I’d very much rather the TEA stay, thank you very much.

John Hitchcock on June 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I do have to say that it is with extreme pleasure watching these people colapse under their own weight.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Yes, but don’t think they’ll give up easily the treasures they’ve been looting for so long, the hyenas. May God punish them all, and harshly, especially the looters.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Can hardly wait for one of our resident Leftist Bridge Abutment People to tell us that this 7-2 ruling was “Judicial Activism”.

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Fluke them, not in a good way.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:28 PM

John Hitchcock on June 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Great website. I really like the header.

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM

What’s the difference between garnishing 1.5% of one’s salary and what Mitt Romney’s evil Mormon Church does with tithes?

Del Dolemonte on June 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Good Del, I know how you snarked…

However, on a very serious note, in Europe one of the main reasons that so many people left the churches is that such were built into mandatory deductions from one’s payroll.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Yes, but don’t think they’ll give up easily the treasures they’ve been looting for so long, the hyenas. May God punish them all, and harshly, especially the looters.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Have you been following the FF scandal here in LV. Unfreaking real and now one of them is suing the city for defamation. Looters all.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Have you been following the FF scandal here in LV. Unfreaking real and now one of them is suing the city for defamation. Looters all.

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

VR, got a link? I’d like to read that.

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I really like the header.

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Will. Not. Go. There. +_+

boardy9 on June 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I never heard of that either

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Me, neither. (Waving to my HA bud, Rick.)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Count me in as yet another person who never heard of this phrase. “Waiting with baited breath,” yes. “Waiting with worms on your tongue,” no.

The first thing it brought to my mind is tequila, and it turns out that the worm in the bottom of the bottle is a marketing gimmick.

*waves to GrannyDee and VegasRick*

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Oh, COME ON, guys! “Waiting with worms on your tongue.”

“Waiting with baited breath… ”

#rimshot

I thought that one was older than the hills.

Jazz Shaw on June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Actually, the correct phrase is “…bated breath” as in waiting in a state of such suspense that one can’t breathe. However, the link from “baited” to “worms on the tongue” works pretty well, and the visual image is much more compelling. In any case, a great article for pointing out the details of the decision. Thanks…

Upstreamer on June 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Here you go GrannyDee. Try not to puke.

http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/Government-Employee-Scandal-pension/2012/03/05/id/431489

VegasRick on June 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM

lan astaslem on June 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Geez, good sarcasm never necessitates one of these /.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

*waves to GrannyDee and VegasRick*

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:34 PM

And then notropis on June 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM went and stole the pie right out of our lunches. ((sigh))

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

notropis on June 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

This site is tailor-made for my hubby. I’m not going to send him the link. LOL

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Thanks, GrannyDee. I try to do what I can for the cause — the survival of the greatest nation in the history of the world, and the Founding Documents that made it happen.

John Hitchcock on June 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM

So the / means it wasn’t an attempt at humor but what passes for a serious observation by your lights. Or something.

Akzed on June 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

God, people, lighten up today.

/ is the internet symbol for sarcasm.

However, good sarcasm never needs such a sign. This site s/b way smarter.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Breyer was likely referring to the Constitution of another country as his his wont. Kagan is approaching monnbat status. Her politics are everything, her responsibility nothing.

pat on June 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM

However, good sarcasm never needs such a sign. This site s/b way smarter.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:40 PM

ROTFLMAO… this site is smarter than that… However… every since Bishop decided it was a great snark fishing hole… :O

SWalker on June 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM

“We are disturbed, but unfortunately not surprised in the wake of Citizens United, that the court’s activist conservative majority went out of its way to place special burdens on public-sector unions in their effort to represent working people’s interests,” said Alison Omens, a spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO. Corporations do not face similar limits “when they spend shareholder money on politics,” she said.

Bullcrap. First of all, Citizens United removed restrictions on both corporations and unions. Second, unlike California workers and those in other union states, no one is forced to buy shares in a corporation or associate with it in any way. So, the “special burdens” being placed on unions means they must convince people to voluntarily give them money just like corporations have to. But the unions seem to think they have a “right” to seize others property by force and subterfuge.

RadClown on June 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM

This site is tailor-made for my hubby. I’m not going to send him the link. LOL

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM

My DH never, ever uses the computer (yeah, I know…hard to believe in this day and age) and he’s not quite the political junkie that I am. Whenever I start laughing out loud about something one of our HA friends has posted and then tell my hubby about it, he looks at me as though I’ve lost my mind.

Guess my explanations lose something in the translations. :)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Yeah. ((sigh)) As I remarked @12:39 PM, my hubby would love this site. It’s an extension of what he has done over the years already to me and anyone else within earshot in our family.

Just let me or anyone else mispronounce a word, or use the wrong word, and he’s off and running explaining the etymology, how it’s spelled, and its proper use in a sentence so, as he puts it, “you won’t be embarrassed the next time.” This is usually followed by heavy sighing and much eye-rolling, after which I feel like saying, “This has been another Etymology Moment, brought to you by Mr. PatriotGal2257.” LOL

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

ROTFLMAO… this site is used to be smarter than that… However… every since Bishop decided it was a great snark fishing hole… :O

SWalker on June 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM

SWalker, didn’t mean to imply that it’s his fault. The pool changed.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

As an aside, given that Breyer, Obama, and Warren all passed through the hallowed halls of Harvard, I can only conclude that Harvard offers a piss-poor education.

EdmundBurke247 on June 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM

But first class indoctrination.

AZfederalist on June 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

My DH actually has posting privileges here — I made him sign up during the last open registration because I knew he’d probably like the conversations here — but I think he’s only made a comment once or twice shortly afterward. He’s been a political junkie since he was 12. I’m the one who came to it late. But the other thing is that he’s self-employed and as he puts it, “Work is my hobby.” Yes, he needs to relax and take a break. LOL

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Guess my explanations lose something in the translations. :)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

ROTFLMAO… No it doesn’t.. We’ve all been there… More than once… ;)

SWalker on June 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Guess my explanations lose something in the translations. :)

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Not at all. I’ve been looked at strangely for the same reason. :)

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM

SWalker, didn’t mean to imply that it’s his fault. The pool changed.

Schadenfreude on June 23, 2012 at 12:51 PM

ROTFLMAO… I’ve been here since I think 2006, the site was about 7 or 8 months old when I registered. Believe me I know how things have changed. (man do I miss Bryan Preston)

SWalker on June 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

“This has been another Etymology Moment, brought to you by Mr. PatriotGal2257.” LOL

PatriotGal2257 on June 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM

OMG, PatriotGal, that is too funny.

Reminds me of the time (back in my 20′s) when I was at a high-class, oh-so-proper restaurant, and I didn’t know about a particular fork at my place setting. In a very loud, condescending voice, the snooty waitress said to me, “That’s for your shrimp.”

GrannyDee on June 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2