Required Reading – July 14

Required reading from around the web of the best, most interesting, or most though provoking things we’ve read:

La Fetra: Public-Sector Unions and Gifts of Public Funds

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME prohibits states from allowing public employee unions to dock non-union members’ wages to support collective bargaining and other political activities. The ink had barely dried on that decision before experts began proposing workarounds. For example, First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and others suggest that states could reduce public employee salaries by the amount needed by the union to engage in collective bargaining, and then allocate that amount of public funds directly to the union. On its face, this proposal seems plausible, because courts offer taxpayers little recourse in making First Amendment free speech challenges to public expenditures. But there’s a big problem: . . .”

Read more at American Thinker.

Browning: St. Cloud State professor alleges forced union representation violates her rights

“A St. Cloud State University political science professor filed a federal lawsuit in St. Paul Friday alleging that forcing her to pay union dues violates her First Amendment rights in the wake of a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Kathleen Uradnik — who lists her expertise as American government, law, American political thought, constitutional law and civil rights — sued the Inter Faculty Organization (the union representing faculty members), St. Cloud State and the trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Uradnik, a tenured professor, is not a member of the union, but must pay dues under Minnesota law and submit to its exclusive representation with the university. She seeks a court order declaring that forcing her to submit to union representation violates her rights, and she wants a judgment barring discrimination against nonunion faculty. She also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Read more at Star Tribune.

Trinko: The Facts About Kavanaugh’s Record on Religious Liberty, Obamacare, and Presidential Powers

“Davis: There’s also been some criticism from the right that Kavanaugh isn’t sufficiently strong on religious liberty. David French from National Review wrote a piece in The Washington Post saying, ‘In Priests for Life versus Department of Health and Human Services, Kavanaugh wrongly held that the government had a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraceptives for employees of the specific religious plaintiffs in the case.’ Your thoughts on Kavanaugh on religious liberty? Slattery: Again, I think this is an unfair characterization of Judge Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion in the Priests for Life case, which went on to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reversed, siding with Kavanaugh.

What he said was: . . .”

Read more at Daily Signal.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.