consultants are sandburs

Friday, January 15, 2016

[THERE IS A COMMENT THREAD, ABELER MENTIONED] The overly politicized activist SCOTUS is being asked to screw over unions. Again.

The forces of darkness that allied themselves with the Aplikowski SD35 GOP candidacy via their interlocking of their directorships, management and/or membership are on record; not surprisingly, strongly anti-union with what to me seems a massive dose of sophistry, e.g., here, here, here (published by Strib but sophist authored), see here (again Strib publishes, but a public worker perspective), and this websearch propaganda listing; then compare statements of local DFL SD35 special election candidate Roger Johnson (from MinnPost) which strongly align with pro-union thinking; this link stating in part:

“The strength of the labor movement in American is ingrained in my very being,” Johnson wrote in a letter to the DFL endorsing committee. “My father was there at the formulation of the DFL Party in Minnesota when I was just a pre-school child.”

Education, then and now, shapes Johnson’s political priorities. “My father was always very supportive of schools, that I might become something someday that he only longed to be,” he said. “Schools are very important to me. Just about everything I do is to find opportunities for young people.”

Johnson acknowledges that the number of Republican candidates is indicative of the conservative strength of the district. But he also contends the DFL should have a role to play.

“It’s amazing how many union members live in this district, yet they vote on the conservative side,” he said. “They’re convinced that Democrats are going to take away their gun rights, their snowmobile trails, but when it comes to Roger Johnson, they don’t have a lot to fear.”

Reader input, either way but on point and not deliberately stupid is welcome, via comments.

Some Republican legislators from around the nation, present and former (many also present candidates facing November, 2016), have amicus status before SCOTUS in the case.

Having only begun researching the case, its politics, and case briefing, I am unable presently to put any one particular brief in any context or comment upon its importance, overall, especially one having amicus status and not being a brief of an actual party to the litigation from its beginning.

Here is another amicus effort to chew on, see its p.41 [Appendix page, captioned "App.2"] for noting the fingerprints of the Minnesota propagandist nest called, Center of the American Experiment; compare this link of the local perps.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Republican union-hatred in its most naked form, stripped of any fig leaf sophistry, is clear from the spokesperson the Republicans chose to counter the President's SOTU address; with USA Today reporting a South Carolina Governor Nikki Hilton statement, in context:

South Carolina loves its manufacturing jobs from BMW, Michelin and Boeing and wants more.

But Gov. Nikki Haley says they're not welcome if they're bringing a unionized workforce.

"It's not something we want to see happen," she said after an appearance at an automotive conference in downtown. "We discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South Carolina because we don't want to taint the water."

In a recent vote at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., the company remained neutral about bringing in the United Auto Workers. VW had said it favors the creation of a German-style "works council," which gives workers a voice on a variety of products and other decisions.


[italics added] Read the entire item. Folks seem plain crazy in South Carolina.

If you are in a union, and do not want to see Minnesota be a frozen clone of South Carolina, vote your conscience - which means vote your economic best interests, and do not be diverted by divide-and-conquer pseudo issues. Yes, easy to say but hard to do. Yet, that is where leaders show leadership and rank-and-file workers show intelligence.


Anonymous said...

Couple of tidbits for your readers -- which they can make their own evaluations.
1. It should be noted that Jim Abeler was one of the signers of the "Friend of the Court" brief.
2. So if the idea is that thwart union money into political campaigns, check out John Kline's Freedom and Security PAC which received a $5,000 donation from NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION on November 3rd ... it's most interesting because the donation went to someone who is not running for re-election but has a PAC where he can distribute monies to candidates he supports. Do your readers think that John Kline will give that to candidates who support pro-public education which the PAC says is its mission ?
3. Since SD-35 is mentioned as well as Roger Johnson's wanting to get the message out that gun-owners should not fear him, the MN Gun Owners PAC has endorsed Jim Abeler.

Mac Hall

eric zaetsch said...

Mac - The post mentions two amicus briefs. I saw your comment posted on Dan Burns' Minnesota Progressive Project post about the SD35 primary result.

To avoid reader confusion, Jim Abeler is one of the amici to the brief titled, "BRIEF OF REPUBLICAN CURRENT AND FORMER MEMBERS OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS" (the first mentioned in the post, see it at p.30 where the GOP amici are listed alphabetically). Abeler is no part of the other linked brief, "BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE STATE PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS" as far as I can tell. The latter brief is the one that the Meeks' operation favors, Hinderaker's new employer, while it appears Hinderaker is still up tight with Freedom Club.

The distinction is not minor. Abeler is on the brief favoring RESPONDENTS, the other GOP noise organ that is linked to favoring Aplikowski and trashing Abeler via Hinderaker having a foot in each camp, if not by more strings, briefs in favor of the troublemakers, PETITIONERS.

Now how do you read the tealeaves on the Kline thing? I'm a bit confused. Are you confused by it too? Anything you speculate would clearly be opinion, based on the facts, and not a representation of actual factual knowledge beyond what you wrote, unless you have additional facts to share.

Last, the MN Gun Onwers PAC seems to be another noise organ of some faction of the GOP, and doing its thing where the NRA declines orange card mailings, and/or where it agrees or chooses to disagree with the heavyweight champ of handgun advocacy. Sportsmen favoring long guns are separate from urban shooters or carrying would-be shooters; and NRA takes a hike on the habitat considerations of long gun owners who can only hunt what's alive to be hunted. NRA seems to front for handguns, disproportionately, and has what appears to me to be a GOP bias so strong as to be unreliable and misleading to voters with broad spectrum concerns such as the plight of the little guy against big money steamrolling.

Reader links for that PAC, per the Campaign Finance regulatory borard, here and here.

Readers can pursue the latter link for past reports of that gun bunny PAC, where the question is mainly is it worth the time. Not to me. Noise that does not really help, hurts.

eric zaetsch said...

An email has been sent to Abeler asking if he'd like to flesh out his amicus status. Presently Crabgrass awaits a reply.

As already noted A BIG CAVEAT one needs to study the full briefing, especially that of the parties to the dispute which would lay out the lower court history and the main quesiton(s) raised by the parties in reaching the Supreme Court. To focus on linking only to two amicus briefs is a choice out of convenience, as reading all that stuff is a pain. Somebody should do it and for me, best it be somebody else.

The Roberts court is scary. An opinion, where others might feel otherwise, John Roberts is the worse and most dangerous political hack in Washington, DC. Robe or not, as much a politician as Trump or Cruz or Rubio, and his appointment has lessened the luster of that bench, (again an opinion that others might not share).

Because study needed to properly analyze the amicus briefing has not been done, it would be presumptious to try to pontificate on what one or the other of the two linked briefs proves about much of anything. Except, given the Meeks' operation involved in the one favoring PETITIONERS, my inclination is to like more the other, favoring RESPONDENTS.

But that's more seat of the pants guesswork than an informed opinion.

Speculating here on what that appeal to the Supreme Court may yield of the disgusting nature of Citizens United or Hobby Lobby is confined to the leopards don't change their spots adage.

Any other reader wanting to dip an oar into the waters of this comment thread is more than welcome, so long as the comment is cogent and relevant.