Business interests have been bringing challenges all year to the National Labor Relations Board. Update: A company's shadow docket ask at SCOTUS was rejected.
Roe v. Wade was a precedent from the early 1970s. The NLRB was established in 1935. It is breathtaking that this court is this brazen in destroying long-standing precedents and entities for the simple reasons that its most rightwing members don't like them and because it can. This court is teetering on the edge of illegitimacy, if it's not already over the precipice. Maybe it's time for the Biden administration simply to ignore the court's rulings. Would that create a constitutional crisis? Arguably, the court itself already has created one.
Businesses think the best thing for them is anarchy plus the constable, but they won't like it when the seller who took their money for 1,000 pounds of best butter sends them 45 pounds of engine oil and then says that they were simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.
I know that irony is supposed to have died on 9/11, but we're really in Bizarro World when this case is expected to get the Supreme Court, of all people, to say that the NLRB must be abolished BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO REMOVE PEOPLE FROM OFFICE. An appropriate follow-up for a line of cases where people who hate Board-certified elections sue when there hasn't been one, and people who hate notice and comment rulemaking complain when an agency issues a rule without it.
There have been constitutional and other challenges to various provisions of the NLRA including attempts to circumvent the normal procedure which includes judicial review. The shortcut efforts have almost always failed.
Roe v. Wade was a precedent from the early 1970s. The NLRB was established in 1935. It is breathtaking that this court is this brazen in destroying long-standing precedents and entities for the simple reasons that its most rightwing members don't like them and because it can. This court is teetering on the edge of illegitimacy, if it's not already over the precipice. Maybe it's time for the Biden administration simply to ignore the court's rulings. Would that create a constitutional crisis? Arguably, the court itself already has created one.
I like that idea.
As Kagan noted, the removal cases are based on bullshit.
Thanks for the update. The Court, as was noted, is on the ballot.
Businesses think the best thing for them is anarchy plus the constable, but they won't like it when the seller who took their money for 1,000 pounds of best butter sends them 45 pounds of engine oil and then says that they were simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.
Thanks for breaking this down clearly for those of us who know very little of labor law. You are one of the best translators out there!
I know that irony is supposed to have died on 9/11, but we're really in Bizarro World when this case is expected to get the Supreme Court, of all people, to say that the NLRB must be abolished BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO REMOVE PEOPLE FROM OFFICE. An appropriate follow-up for a line of cases where people who hate Board-certified elections sue when there hasn't been one, and people who hate notice and comment rulemaking complain when an agency issues a rule without it.
Rules?… We don’t need no stinking rules!
There have been constitutional and other challenges to various provisions of the NLRA including attempts to circumvent the normal procedure which includes judicial review. The shortcut efforts have almost always failed.