The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court - The New Yorker

By Jeffrey Toobin

The conservatives on the Court are poised for a comeback. Credit Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty

The beleaguered liberals on the Supreme Court had a great deal to celebrate in the term that ended in June. Two epic cases, and even some lesser ones, went their way. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Justices ruled, five to four, that all fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages. And in King v. Burwell, the Court, by a vote of six to three, dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that might have, as a practical matter, destroyed the law. A surprising victory in a housing-discrimination case and another where the Court allowed limits on judges’ soliciting campaign contributions completed a major run of progressive victories.

Don’t expect the streak to last. The liberals’ big victories last term arose from a very particular set of circumstances. Justice Anthony Kennedy has displayed a consistent respect for the rights of gay people, which made his alliance with the four liberals (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) on same-sex marriage almost a foregone conclusion. In King v. Burwell, a group of conservative legal activists pushed such a transparently fraudulent claim about the text of the Obamacare law that Chief Justice John Roberts and Kennedy (who are no fans of the law) had to reject the claim.

But the conservatives on the Court are poised for a comeback, and the subjects before the Justices appear well suited for liberal defeats. Consider:

Affirmative action. The Chief Justice has been primed to get rid of any kind of racial preferences since he took office, a decade ago. In 2013, in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Justices essentially kicked the issue of affirmative action in college admissions down the road. Lower courts upheld the Texas plan, which allows an extremely limited use of racial diversity in admissions. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case a second time—an unusual step in itself. It’s hard to imagine that the Justices reached out for this case again simply to preserve the status quo. A decision limiting—or eliminating—racial preferences in admissions seems highly likely.

Abortion. After the Republican landslides in the 2010 midterm elections, more than a dozen states tightened their restrictions on abortion. No state banned abortion altogether, but several came close. Some have banned abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy, and others have imposed requirements on clinics that make them virtually impossible to operate. (For example, the laws require that doctors who provide abortions must have admitting privileges at local hospitals; they also impose on clinics the building standards of ambulatory surgical centers.) In Texas, the new rules would require all but nine abortion providers in the state to close their doors. It’s true that, in June, five Justices (the liberals plus Kennedy) issued a stay, preventing the law from going into effect; but Kennedy has favored limits on abortion in recent years, and there is every reason to believe he will support these new ones, too.

Public-employee unions. At the end of June, the Justices agreed to decide Friedrichs v. California; it could sharply limit the power of public-employee unions, which have been bulwarks of support for Democratic office-holders. In states like California, public employees who choose not to join a union must still pay the equivalent of dues (“fair share” fees) when the union negotiates their contracts. If the challengers win this case, the unions may lose millions of dollars in revenue, with a consequent loss of power. Since public-employee unions have done so much better than private-sector unions in recent years, that would hurt the union movement as a whole in an especially vulnerable place. The campaign against fair-share fees has been a special crusade for Justice Samuel Alito, and he may kill them off for good this time.

There is not yet a major campaign-finance case before the Justices, but in an election year it would be no surprise to see one surface. The conservative majority, led in this case by Kennedy, has shown no sign of backing away from its Citizens United decision, from 2010, which said that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. On the rights of criminal suspects, especially those sentenced to death, the Court remains deeply conservative as well. It only underscores the magnitude of the liberal victories in 2015 to recognize that they may seem deeply aberrational in 2016.

The Coming Liberal Disaster at the Supreme Court - The New Yorker

GOP stays united, Dems fail to override Rauner veto – Illinois News Network

 

SPRINGFIELD — House Democrats on Wednesday came up three votes short in their attempt to override Gov. Bruce Rauner’s veto of the “no strike-no lockout” or interest arbitration bill.

Although knowing the attendance put him one Democrat shy of his full 71 members present — the same number of votes needed for a successful override attempt — House Speaker Michael Madigan let the vote roll forward.

Backers of Senate Bill 1229 put up 67 votes in the House when the bill originally passed.

On Wednesday, they gained two Democratic votes from members who were ill and not present for the original vote — Monique Davis of Chicago and Frank Mautino of Spring Valley. Also, Democratic Rep. Andre Thapedi of Chicago moved into the “Yes” column.

But Rep. Kenneth Dunkin, a Chicago Democrat, was absent, and Rep. Scott Drury, D-Highwood, who had previously voted for the bill decided to vote against an override.

That meant SB 1229 — which the Senate had already overridden — netted only one additional vote in the House, as none of the 47 House Republicans broke ranks.

The final tally was 68 in favor of override, 34 opposed, nine voting “present,” and seven members not voting.

While that unity effectively ended the bill’s life, it does put Republican members from areas with ties to organized labor on record as opposing or at least not supporting the labor-supported bill — something Democrats are sure to use in coming elections.

Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, lead sponsor in the House, said he was disappointed by Wednesday’s outcome but still believed in the bill, which he said was intended to protect workers from the specter of a forced strike and to protect Illinoisans from a government shutdown caused by any public work stoppage.

In debate, the GOP went after the bill and Smiddy hard, painting the legislation as an unprecedented attempt to knock one Republican governor, Rauner, away from the bargaining table and hand the duties of the elected chief executive over to an un-elected arbiter.

“You’re changing the rules in midstream,” said House Republican Leader Jim Durkin of Westmont. I think this is the kind of thing we hear in the media happening overseas, and I think it’s unfair and it’s wrong.”

Rep. Peter Breen, R-Lombard, was more aggressive, coming right to the edge of calling Smiddy corrupt.

“It’s political payoff, pure and simple,” said Breen. “This bill is corrupt, so corrupt it would make Rod Blagojevich blush.”
Smiddy, a former state prisons employee and union member, stayed even-tempered.

“This a bill to protect the citizens of Illinois from being caught up in the middle of bitter contract dispute,” he said.

He dismissed the notion he was personally trying to bump Rauner from the picture.
“Last I checked, the governor hasn’t been in bargaining,” Smiddy said. “He puts somebody there for him.”

Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, didn’t care for some of the GOP characterizations and shouted his comments in support of the bill and of its sponsor.
“I stand with the middle class,” Bradley yelled. “I stand with working man, and I stand with state workers. I stand with common sense, and I stand with keeping this state open.”

Senate Bill 1229, would have allowed mandatory arbitration should either the state or its unionized employees declare a bargaining impasse in their continuing contract talks.

Once the binding arbitration hearing begins, a strike or lockout would be prohibited. In the end, a panel of arbitrators would pick from either the state’s or the union’s final offers on economic-interest items such as pay and benefits.

The GOP painted the bill as an expensive, taxpayer-funded gift to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — which represents some 35,000 state employees — and said it would take a tax increase to fund a $1.6 billion or larger raise for some of the country’s best-paid state employees.

Democrats, on the other hand, argued the bill only gave unionized workers a chance at equal footing with Rauner, whom they accuse of wanting to break public-sector unions, especially AFSCME.

“Sadly, I think there is no room for doubt as to how this governor views unions,” said Rep. Carol Sente, D-Vernon Hills.

After the vote, Rauner issued a statement thanking lawmakers who opposed the override.
“It is encouraging that many legislators recognized the dire financial impact this legislation would have had on our state,” the governor said.

“I hope today’s action marks the beginning of serious negotiations over how we can deliver needed structural reforms and a balanced budget,” he added.

About to drive home from Springfield, Smiddy said he wasn’t taking the rugged politicking personally.

“I worked in a state prison,” he said. “I’ve got a pretty thick skin.”

GOP stays united, Dems fail to override Rauner veto – Illinois News Network

Bid to override veto of arbitration bill fails in Illinois House - Yahoo News

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The Illinois House on Wednesday failed to override Governor Bruce Rauner's veto of a controversial bill to send collective bargaining impasses to arbitration, leaving open the possibility of a future strike or lockout of state workers.

The Democrat-controlled House fell three votes short of the 71 needed to make the bill law after the Senate, which also has a Democratic majority, overrode Rauner's veto last month.

Democratic lawmakers and the Republican governor have been locked in a struggle over a state budget and an agenda pushed by Rauner that includes legislative term limits and collective bargaining curbs. Illinois this week entered its third month without a budget for the fiscal year that started July 1.

House Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters after the vote that the bill was meant to buy labor peace by prohibiting strikes or lockouts. He also noted that Rauner "did talk in terms of the possibility of a government shutdown in order to achieve his goals."

Rauner had condemned the bill as an attempt to take away his power to negotiate worker contracts at a time the state is strapped for cash.

"It is encouraging that many legislators recognized the dire financial impact this legislation would have had on our state," the governor said in a statement.

He added that he hoped "serious negotiations" can begin on structural reforms and a balanced budget. Madigan also expressed hope that differences could be resolved, but Democrats are unlikely to embrace items on Rauner's agenda that would hurt unions or impair their party's power.

The state's biggest public labor union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, said Rauner's attack on the arbitration bill "has now derailed the best hope of amicably settling union contracts that are fair to all."

While the contract expired June 30, the union, which represents 38,000 state workers, and the state have an agreement that expires Sept. 30 not to strike or lockout workers while negotiations continue.

(Reporting by Karen Pierog; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

Bid to override veto of arbitration bill fails in Illinois House - Yahoo News