Actually, they are the "Supreme" authority on what is or isn't constitutional. That is both a good and a bad thing.
You missed the point. Until injuncted in a lower court, government actions are constitutionally legal, in fact there's a doctrine called 'ripeness' stating that except in some irreversible cases like election law, the law HAS to have an affect on some government, company or individual before they can bring a case against it.
You see this happening with abortion law now. Most of the laws clearly violate RvW and/or Casey, however they're not futile. They're throwing a lot of mud at a wall in the expectation that with a right-leaning court, some of it will stick.
This is particularly relevant with gun law, which I assume you care about, as well as what we're talking about here. A right leaning court should welcome the opportunity to further restrict public sector unions. They always prefer to chip away at what they see as problems, rather than make sweeping rulings which it may be hard to stay consistent with in future.
My only concern is that public unions exist. So if government were to abolish public unions then I would no longer have any concerns. There is no need for the Supreme Court to be involved at all.
They absolutely would be involved. It's a constitutional matter just like any union-busting.
Very true, but the end result was that the law enacted by Congress to prohibit donations was a violation of the First Amendment. Essentially the Supreme Court has equated private money as a form of "free speech" when it concerns political donations. Thus preventing State and federal governments from interfering.
And a carve-out for unions using donations to affect their own employer? Why does that seem like a heavier lift to you, than BANNING A UNION?
In a perfect world no unions would exist. However, like I said, the First Amendment also acknowledges the individual right to freely associate with whomever we please. That includes the right for private unions to exist, or any other private association, like the KKK or the neo-NAZIs.
And public unions? Where is government granted the power to prevent unionism (in violation of First Am as you acknowledge) in their own employees?
In fact, put like that, isn't it a vast government over-reach which right-wingers usually oppose like the Devil?
There would be no need to fire anyone. Simply abolish the public unions. The teachers would still teach classes and be paid exactly the same. Police would still enforce the laws and be paid exactly the same. Firefighters would still put out fires and be paid exactly the same. More in fact, since they no longer would be paying union dues.
That's naive. What they will do when you "abolish" a teacher's union is they will go out on indefinite strike. You'll have to use police as child-minders until you import teachers from Fiji (or wherever). Bad plan, man.
They do elect representative who feel the same.
No, I mean the voters who have a problem with paying teachers etc so much, still have the option of electing someone who feels the same and will do something about it.
If it's even possible.
You have no solution for it, and you won't settle for the minimalist restriction on donations because it does not slake your thirst for destruction of the unions themselves. Sucks to be you, I guess.
