The Supreme Courts Power Play Against Labor by Linda Greenhouse
'Here’s a possible solution to the most commented-upon mystery growing out of the Supreme Court’s argument this week in a case of crucial importance to the future of public employee unions: Why did the normally loquacious Justice Neil M. Gorsuch stay silent? Could the junior justice have caught something from Justice Clarence Thomas, who famously went a decade without asking a single question? Was Justice Gorsuch overcome by the knowledge that with his eight colleagues tied four to four — as revealed by the vote two terms ago in a nearly identical case that was argued but not yet decided by the time of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death — he holds the fate of organized labor in his hands?
No, nothing as tantalizing as that. I think the answer is probably a good deal more pedestrian. The lawyer representing the labor union, David C. Frederick, is Justice Gorsuch’s former law partner. When President Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court a year ago, Mr. Frederick published an opinion essay in The Washington Post under the headline: “There Is No Principled Reason to Vote Against Gorsuch.” Identifying himself as “a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes,” Mr. Frederick called Judge Gorsuch “a longtime friend” and described him as “brilliant, diligent, open-minded and thoughtful.” So why would Justice Gorsuch beat up on his old friend when Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy were doing an enthusiastic job of it?
There. Minor mystery solved. But that leaves unaddressed a major mystery that goes to the heart of the case: how Justices Alito and Kennedy, with all their years of experience, could have permitted their intense dislike of organized labor to strip them of judicious inhibition and drive them to act as advocates and even something very close to bullies.
I wasn’t in the courtroom on Monday when the court heard the case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. I didn’t have to be. The transcript was so hot that it almost jumped out of my hands. Usually as I read an argument transcript I make marginal check marks and underline a few passages. This time, when I picked up the transcript for a second reading, I found the margins full of words like “wow” and “oof.”
Here’s an “oof,” preceded by some necessary context.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/supreme-court-labor-unions.html?
