Reply – Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Harrington Brief, on appeal...
— by Ted Ted
anon - do you know what stare-decisis is? Do you comporehend that when a bad decision is handed down by a Court, in this instance one very Liberal Court wherein the 2 Justices voting in the majority were fairly confused as to why they ruled that way?

The only justice who stated things correctly, as per the laws of the land happened to be the dissenting judge.

The SSR's & the std. of 'arbirtrary & capricious' was nothing more than semanitcs. classic lawyering used to end run the real issue presented in the case....the right to vote in direct elections of officers - period.

As I stated time & again, one case, in one circuit (especially with bought & paid for justices....yes anon, it happens in America, people, politicians & judges can be corrupted and are corrupt, as is McCarron, Tutor, Blum Feinstein & oh so many others).

The United States Supreme Court when it gets such a case, one wherein bad rulings were used for 10, 20, 30 50 years - they love tearing this shit up, same as they do when the corrupt forces at the DOL & NLRB Board issue moronic decisions & orders outside their area of expertise in the law to review/decide.

That you readily ignore many such cases by the Supreme Court shows a lack of comprehension of U.S. jurisprudence and a disrespect for the Supreme Court. Harrington v. Chao is one such case that follows the typical stare-decisis mold. Many ignorany himans though the world flat for millenia....and everyone knows its an ellipse...thats a joke kid.

All Chao did was replace one fiefdom crew (Locals) with a larger fiefdom (Councils) via consolidation(s) and illegally garnered trusteeships or hostile takeovers of you will. What is at the core of both? Simple, the core issue which started the fiasco, the NLRA, the Act - and the right of the workers, the employees to vote in direct elections as Congress intended and in fact wrote into law, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else put into this chain of cases was pure emotional rhetoric, legal gamesmanship, semantics, excuses & bold face fabrications of fact & law. Once you seperate the wheat from the chaffe, the rest is easy.

The Supreme Court is adept at getting to the heart of these matters, the core issues and even though you refuse to read the definitions of words & phrases used in the actual text of the NLRA, its Amendments and its entire Legislative History - the Supreme court will, and they leave no stone unturned.

If Walsh won't make the case for us, we will have to do it ourselves. That will require people who can remove themsleves from the 'emotional arguments' and review the cases with this mindset. It will have to be reverse engineered from the Supreme Court backwrds through the system and it will require the review of both parties arguments. In the end - examination of 500-1000 case will be required. It's months of work - do you have the stomach for it or are you with the UBC, McCarron & the Jack Welch hostile takeover philosophy?