Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:04 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Ohhh looky another case of the govt trampling on the rights of people Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:27,641
Points:1,470,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 9:53:27 PM

I guess if big labor wants it private property right dont count
.
>>>On Thursday, the California Supreme Court upheld two state laws allowing labor unions to picket on privately owned property.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard justified the state's interference in protests on private property because "the state's interest in promoting collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes."

She went on to explain that while other groups have no such rights, California "may single out labor-related speech for particular protection or regulation."

The California court's 6-1 ruling, overturned an appeals court ruling which decided that giving labor unions special status is a violation of the United States Constitution.

The case originated from a protest out side Ralph's grocery store in Sacramento. The store had asked that picketers be removed from the entrance of the store. A trial court refused to order the protestors removal.<<<

The activist courts are again trampling on the rights of people. If its really not private property where the taxpayers have rights - then lets all stop paying property taxes - cause we really don't have the rights to it that we are supposed to have. When the govt takes away part of the bundle of rights we have without compensation - what does it mean for all of us?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,392
Points:1,781,525
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 12:49:05 PM

sgm, doesn't it open the door that I can come stand at your doorstep and preach my political opinion and there is nothing you can do about it? There should be no argument about it. By not allowing them to protest on his private property it is not impeding their free speech. They can go anywhere public and preach their political views. Basically this opens the door in California to someone being able to come sit on anyone's front doorstep with a political campaign sign, religious placard, or whatever and there is nothing anyone can do about it! So, what is more important, someone being able to express their free speech while trespassing or the sanctity of our own private property?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,815
Points:2,927,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 12:00:31 PM

"Hmm.. so I buy a piece of land, and the state can tell me totally and exactly how I'm going to use it? Yes, I get permitting, but after they've approved, say me to build a house and a garage on it, they can now tell me I have to, say, allow someone else to build a structure on my land?"

Not at all. The right of the sovereign state is not unlimited. Your example is too extreme. The idea of property, as they teach it in law school, is that property exists as a bundle of rights (conceptually, a bundle of sticks), that the state allows you to hold--the government supports your right to your property against illegal encroachments by others, for example.

In the actual case of the labor picketers, it appears that the state supreme court is weighing two sets of rights: the property rights of the store owner vs. the free speech rights of the picketers (evidently they had to look at it narrowly, because most invocation of labor laws will bring in federal law, the NLRA and its amendments, and that is one hairy set of case law).
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,090
Points:1,186,115
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 10:09:57 PM

If you’re stupid enough to open any business in California then you get what you asked for, high taxes, insane regulation, over reaching unions and courts that don’t enforce the law but legislate from the bench instead.

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the land of loons.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 1/2/2013 10:11:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,926
Points:817,605
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 5:23:17 PM

"what does it mean for all of us?"


Means it's time to rent an industrial pressure washer to scrub the sidewalk extra clean to attract customers. Certainly would be disappointing if someone was in the way after a warning, wouldn't it? Could take hours, even days...
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,680
Points:3,404,245
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 3:20:31 PM

And in the case of the farmer, Ydrig, I think this has to be federal, not state. The states do not normally enforce federal laws.

Flyboy - I agree with you. Endangered species act not allowing someone to farm the land that is their only source of income? And that's not considered a "taking"? Yeah, they still hold title to the land, but you've still "TAKEN" this man's income from him. He ought to be remunerated either in $$ or in land. Nothing else is reasonable. There should be a way to argue this in court and win.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,392
Points:1,781,525
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 2:18:58 PM

"If the laws of a state openly support unions and "collective bargaining" (which I refer to collective extortion), then the judges have three choices; Uphold the law as stated, resign as a judge, or move to another state."

If they were protesting on a busy street and impeding traffic would them make the same decision? Probably not....this is a terrible decision handed down that has no merit. Just because they support "collective bargaining" means nothing when it comes to the rights of private ownership. They are putting the rights of some individuals over the rights of others stictly for political points.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,392
Points:1,781,525
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 2:16:40 PM

"The California Supreme Court took the position that "all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare."

Like usual we see that courts trying to decipher things and making them more complicated than the intended purpose of a law or earlier decision. The statement that the government has the right to regulate the use of land is going down the road of eminent domain. Since when does allowing protesters/picketers on private land in any way promote the public welfare? Furthermore, in most localities, it requires a permit to have an organized protest on public land yet they will allow picketers on private land? This does not pass the smell test....

[Edited by: AFSNCO at 1/2/2013 2:20:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,432
Points:3,119,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 12:36:03 PM

>>The activist courts are again trampling on the rights of people.<<

"Activist court/judge" - the right-wing catch-all term for any decision they don't like.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 5:06:59 PM

Actually, blaming the courts is a bit off. They are simply debating on whether the case has merit under STATE LAWS.

If the laws of a state openly support unions and "collective bargaining" (which I refer to collective extortion), then the judges have three choices; Uphold the law as stated, resign as a judge, or move to another state.

We too often lay the blame on judges who are actually performing the job we want them to. We should, instead, be going after the legislature that created those laws in the first place.

Blaming the judges is like killing the messenger. It may make you feel good for a time, but does nothing the rectify the bad news he brought.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,641
Points:1,470,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 4:47:25 PM

AC I dont think you have ever had to play with the endangered species act and the zealots who love it so. They dont care what effects their rulings have on people. The courts have already said that wha they do is not a 'taking' even thought they take away your rights of landownership.

Yes the system is skewed adn crazy. But try telling that to some judge who thinks Central Park is Wilderness with a CAPITAL W.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,680
Points:3,404,245
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2012 12:00:33 PM

I can also remember a case, oh, 15, maybe 20 years ago, where a farmer in Central CA had a field. In this area, lives a rare mouse. The farmer was told he couldn't plant his crop, as the plow blades to sow his crop might kill some of these mice. Well he ignored the order and was arrested when he went to plow his own field.

Again, this also rubs me the wrong way. If this mouse is so important that it needs protection, then why didn't they offer this farmer either "payment in kind", or a land swap? Instead they are expecting him to pay for a piece of farmland that he cannot farm and cannot use to support himself anymore. They're expecting him to pay money on his mortgage to support endangered mice? Huh?

My understanding of the law is that any law that is made must be reasonable and reasonably able to to be followed. That was not reasonable at all. By disallowing him from making a living on land he's been farming for years, you are taking his livelihood away, and he has no recourse. Totally wrong, legally and ethically.

The Unions are wrong, too. There may be a union dispute, but the pickets should not be allowed to impede business by blocking entrances to customers nor to replacement employees.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 11:32:51 AM

Without more information to explain what happened, it appears to me that Ralph's grocery store asked for the wrong solution.

Ralph's asked that the pickets be removed. If the pickets were acting legally there is no reason to remove them. But if the pickets were illegally blocking the entrance and preventing other employees and/or customers from entering the store, the solution is not to have them removed; its to have them arrested and hauled off.

Sounds to me that both Ralph's and the judge acted like idiots. But maybe there is more to the story.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 12/30/2012 11:36:58 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,641
Points:1,470,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:41:12 AM

SGM - a whole lot of cases to try adn read and understand for sure. After trying to read/skim most of them I am confused as to what the rules really are.

Once more it seems to be - 'well it depends'.

My personal viewpoint is that if its private property that priviate indivuduals or companies have to maintain themselves and pay property taxes on then they should have the right to determine who is allowed to use it in what manner. Landownership is comprised of a bundle of rights one purchases when they buy the land. The rights you purchase are a taxable item. If the government for whatever reasons takes away some of those rights then it seems that if they wish to do so they have to compensate the person who loses the rights. If the govt does it under the cloak of eminent domain then they should have to prove a 'public use'.

In my estimation the courts adn govt have taken away a tremendous amount of our individual rights and responsiblities. Personally I wish the pendelum would sting the other way. Notice I said rights and RESPONSIBILITIES. We do need to hold people responsible for what they do and dont do when action is required of us.

The more we refuse to redeem our responsibilities the more govt, via the courts if needed, will take away rights to balance the responsibilities.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,680
Points:3,404,245
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:30:29 AM

OK, I can understand "reasonable restrictions". But the bit that says: "..all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare." - that rubs me the wrong way. Hmm.. so I buy a piece of land, and the state can tell me totally and exactly how I'm going to use it? Yes, I get permitting, but after they've approved, say me to build a house and a garage on it, they can now tell me I have to, say, allow someone else to build a structure on my land? Or that I cannot start a victory garden? Not cool.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,815
Points:2,927,995
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2012 10:00:18 AM

Interesting area of law that I was unaware of. Some history:

"... the California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979), that the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners. The California Supreme Court took the position that "all private property is held subject to the power of government to regulate its use for the public welfare." In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, noting that its own reasoning in Lloyd "does not ex proprio vigore limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution." Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins (1980). A state may, therefore, in the exercise of its police power, adopt reasonable restrictions on private property, so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision."

Since the Court's decision in Pruneyard, few states have recognized any state constitutional right to free expression on private property. The scope of these decisions is narrow. State constitutional provisions have been held to apply in only two private-property settings: shopping malls and non-public universities. Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.

source of quotation and a fuller explanation.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 12/30/2012 10:01:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,641
Points:1,470,470
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 11:55:34 AM

AC - not according to your prog/lib judges there. Next the ACLUoopy will sue those places that have the signs "no shirt, no shoes - no service".

Bet some activist prog/lib court will find it damages someones ego or is discrimination or something.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,680
Points:3,404,245
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 11:48:50 AM

I get that it is a public place of business. It's a store, so anyone can and rightly should be able to go there to buy groceries. Fair enough. But aren't there also laws that say that the picketers cannot block the entry and cannot prevent shoppers (or other workers) from entry or egress of the building or lot?

This was a problem here in LaLa land during our grocery strike. I saw one grocery, also a Ralph's (Ralph's is what the Kroger chain calls itself out here) where picketers marched in a circle around the entrance and were disallowing folks to go into the store. That's both illegal and immoral, as far as I'm concerned.
Profile Pic
hooky
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:28,514
Points:2,965,145
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 5:38:32 AM

Unions are just another tool of Odumma in the destruction of this country!
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,792
Points:3,270,065
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 5:08:03 AM

And since when did we have any rights. This administration will soon abolish the constitution.
Post a reply Back to Topics