supreme court dispatches
columns
- Smoke Rings
How to fight big tobacco without ever talking about the health risks of smoking.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted Oct. 6, 2008 - The Capital Gang
The Supreme Court jump-starts the machinery of death.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted April 16, 2008 - Jail of Two Cities
The Supreme Court gives the right to habeas corpus a swirly.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted March 25, 2008 - Bearing Arms … Against Bears
Justice Kennedy thinks D.C. residents need protection—from grizzlies.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted March 18, 2008 - Oil and Water
The Exxon Valdez case runs aground at the Supreme Court.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted Feb. 27, 2008 - Search for more supreme court dispatches articles
- Subscribe to the supreme court dispatches RSS feed
- View our complete supreme court dispatches archive
Just Say No TwiceThe Supreme Court declines to pay its union dues.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007, at 6:06 PM ET
Scalia continues to club West about the state's "extraordinary power to exact funds from people," gleefully describing the "government as coercer." Justice John Paul Stevens asks whether a far-broader law, limiting unions from participating in any activity beyond those germane to collective bargaining, would be constitutionally permissible since it doesn't single out political speech. When West tries to answer him, Stevens blurts, "Can you just tell me yes or no and then explain?" West replies, "Yes and no," which cracks up the gallery, but not so much the justices.
Justice Sam Alito gets at the heart of the case when he disputes West's assumption that perhaps nonmembers of the union would nevertheless love to see their fees go to union political activity. "These are teachers who have chosen not to join the WEA, right?" Alito asks. "Then isn't it overwhelmingly likely that they, if you spoke to them and said would you like to give money to the union to spend on elections, they would say no?" He is baffled, adding, "Why would I choose to give up the benefits of union membership and yet want to allow the union to spend my money for its political purposes?"
West says he "absolutely disagrees" with that presumption, but it's hard to see why.
Attorney General McKenna makes this same point rather nicely in his rebuttal: "The state of Washington's position," he says, "is that nonmembers should not be required to say no twice. They said no when they chose not to join the union. The union's position now is 'we get to use your money for political purposes unless you say no a second time.' "
This probably isn't good news for the unions, which are about to see their power to engage in political advocacy sharply limited by the high court. But as the justices seem mostly to agree today, it's certainly not illogical to assume that if that cute freshman from your Russian-lit class already told you she didn't want to go on a date with you, it's a pretty safe bet she doesn't want to have sex with you, either.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Historical Archives: Facial Corsets For Ladies, Finally
Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Over the LineHarold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
- Robinson: A Little Worried About the Meltdown
- Khaled Hosseini: Sen. McCain, Am I a Pariah?
- Ombudsman: A Puff Piece About the Obamas?
- King: The Anatomy of an Assault
- Today's Headlines
- Laramie Resident Reflects On Shepard Anniversary
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:11:55 GMT - Zakaria: A More Disciplined America
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:00:21 GMT - Why Negative Ads Are Good for Voters
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:10:35 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- An Obama-Palin Ticket
Thu, 9 October 2008 18:16:56 GMT - Love the Player, Hate the GM
Thu, 9 October 2008 21:10:07 GMT - Schooling McCain on the Man Code
Thu, 9 October 2008 20:03:04 GMT - » More from The Root

supreme court dispatches













