Martin Blank wrote:Still, if a union were to be open-shop and national, you wouldn't have a problem with it?
Like, say, the DGA? No, that's fine.
When you work for the government, the rules are different. Hence, the military cannot unionize.
Why is it different because you choose to work for the government? Government employees lose their freedom of association even though they're still civilians? Please explain. And would that affect government contractors? If a substantial portion of a government job is fulfilled by a private company, would you ban them from unionizing?
I actually looked into this, and again, it is the closed-shop problem. An open-shop union, being voluntary, cannot call a national strike. Neither should a government union be able to do so, due to the required functions of the government. It is a little bit of a gray area. If a business like the TV industry shuts down for a few months because of a strike, it is an inconveinience for those that use the service. If the government, on the other hand, shuts down an important function - like Air Traffic Control - it causes big problems. Although, I suppose there are laws on the books preventing a government union from striking, so it isn't a big deal to me.
They rule primarily on contractual items because that's what they're limited to by law. My point was that I would not want to see this expanded to other points because the little guy loses more often than he does in court.
Could that not be due to the inherent nature of contractual law, combined with the fact that the court is more of an appeal system, letting only some cases come forward regarding contractual mediation?
Finally, there is the Supreme Court, which has always looked to the past for guidance. Even now, it looks back to English common and statute law and jurisprudence of the 1600s and 1700s to understand the path of logic of the Founders to help them decide on cases.
But they don't always do so. If they did, there wouldn't be a controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment. I understand that the past law should play a role in the determination of constitutionality. However, I don't think that "because it was done before" is a good enough reason to allow something to happen if the Justice believes that it is unconstitutional and can explain how.
They understand -- as you do not -- how a poorly-considered or upending opinion can throw society into some chaos. Brown v. Board caused all manner of problems throughout the nation (with a focus in the South, of course) because people weren't ready to accept it.
I understand the concept. I also think that we shouldn't allow rights to be violated until the people violating the rights are "ready to accept the change".
Consider what would happen were they not to feel bound by it. Every generation, as the Court's makeup changes, legal precedent would fly out the window on a regular basis. The Court could make you happy by the end of the term, and then in 20 years make you furious by overturning everything because they were not bound by precedent.
They should be bound more by the Constitution than precedent, and when it conflicts with precedent, throw precedent out.