https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/judicial-activism-supreme-court.html
"The Consequences of Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court"
The article "The Consequences of Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court" by Moshe Z. Marvit. Judicial activism, as we have learned in class, is when Supreme Court justices follow the Constitution loosely. These justices say that this method of constitutional interpretation is more reasonable because the Constitution was written 230 years ago and the rules then cannot work now. The article mainly discusses the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, a case arguing against the constitutionality of fair-share fees. Fair-share fees are when unions collect fees from nonmembers who benefit from them. In 1977, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruled that such fees are constitutional, but Janus is expected to overturn that ruling. The activists argue that this will deplete union funding by encouraging free riders. The ruling also would go against years of judicial precedent, as the supreme court has held that the "government has significantly greater leeway" when dealing with citizen employees than it does with citizens at large. The Supreme court has also said that the "First Amendment applies only when the public employee can show that she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." The article closes by stating that the government often makes people pay for things that they do not necessarily agree with, and if the supreme court rules in favor of Janus, it will "turn every minor payment and every workplace matter into a federal case. I agree that the activist view seems to be the far more reasonable. I think funding unions is more important than allowing people to not pay for things they do not agree with, and I agree that ruling in favor of Janus would open the gates for many pointless constitutional debates over minor payments.
"The Consequences of Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court"
The article "The Consequences of Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court" by Moshe Z. Marvit. Judicial activism, as we have learned in class, is when Supreme Court justices follow the Constitution loosely. These justices say that this method of constitutional interpretation is more reasonable because the Constitution was written 230 years ago and the rules then cannot work now. The article mainly discusses the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, a case arguing against the constitutionality of fair-share fees. Fair-share fees are when unions collect fees from nonmembers who benefit from them. In 1977, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruled that such fees are constitutional, but Janus is expected to overturn that ruling. The activists argue that this will deplete union funding by encouraging free riders. The ruling also would go against years of judicial precedent, as the supreme court has held that the "government has significantly greater leeway" when dealing with citizen employees than it does with citizens at large. The Supreme court has also said that the "First Amendment applies only when the public employee can show that she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." The article closes by stating that the government often makes people pay for things that they do not necessarily agree with, and if the supreme court rules in favor of Janus, it will "turn every minor payment and every workplace matter into a federal case. I agree that the activist view seems to be the far more reasonable. I think funding unions is more important than allowing people to not pay for things they do not agree with, and I agree that ruling in favor of Janus would open the gates for many pointless constitutional debates over minor payments.
Comments
Post a Comment