|
Rauner reacts to two union-related developments
Tuesday, Mar 24, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller * I had to meet some folks downtown last night, so I didn’t see this Rauner administration response to both the Illinois Policy Institute’s attempt to intervene on the governor’s side in his federal fair share court case and to yesterday’s federal court decision denying the governor’s attempt to have a state suit filed by unions moved to the federal bench. From Lance Trover…
Discuss.
|
- Reality Check - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:07 am:
Everyone should keep in mind Fitch’s downgrade of the Chicago schools debt rating. Very interestingly, Fitch cited the school district’s “poor working relationship” with the teachers union as a downward driver.
Translation: Rauner should cut out the attacks on workers and their unions. He should stop courting controversy and division. The ratings agencies want stability.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:09 am:
IPI was a little slow on the draw. They’ve gotten big money to carry Rauner’s water.
Trover’s statement makes no sense — “clearly attempting to avoid allowing……”
Put a red pencil to it next time, son.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:10 am:
And the Illinois governor is clearly trying to avoid Illinois courts because he knows that his actions violate Illinois law. Sad.
- AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:10 am:
The attack on unions and their workers will never stop because in Rauner’s mind, they are everything that is wrong with this state. Every penny missing is traced back to these citizens. It is actually discriminatory.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:12 am:
Rauner Crew, “Noise noise noise. Noise. Noise noise. Noise”
There’s not much ya can say when you have very little legal standing.
- Anonymoiis - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:14 am:
Based on the Courts reasoning, had Rauner filed as Plaintiff, the Court would’ve had jurisdiction and taken the case. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the other case where Rauner is the Plaintiff and not simply raising a Federal issue as a defense.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:16 am:
===had Rauner filed as Plaintiff, the Court would’ve had jurisdiction and taken the case===
Not necessarily so. There are other issues here, like standing, which are, um, standing in the governor’s way.
- DuPage - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:22 am:
I wonder how much state money is being wasted on Rauner-related legal expenses.
- 340 East - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:23 am:
Amazing. I’ve been told Rauner has a tiny pen. Is that true?
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:24 am:
And the Governor is clearly attempting to avoid state courts.
- ZC - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:28 am:
Right; seriously, is Rauner even really trying to be Governor of IL right now, or is his top priority trying to crush unions nationwide? Sheesh.
- walker - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:29 am:
Are dues paid to a union for labor representation activities like grievances and contract negotiations, and specifically not for lobbying or political activities, a First Amendment issue?
Do they really expect some judge to stretch Citizens United so far?
- Obamas Puppy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:44 am:
Im glad the Governor is so pro-union.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:51 am:
One of these high-priced consultants needs to tell Captain Queeg to right the ship (of state).
- Archiesmom - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 10:54 am:
= There are other issues here, like standing, which are, um, standing in the governor’s way. =
And dredging up people who do have standing and have them file to intervene is apparently how that’s solved. I asked a litigator this morning, and when there is a plaintiff standing issue raised, they go out and hunt up qualified persons to file as intervenors. In that way, if Rauner gets tossed for lack of standing, as he likely will, the court can substitute in the intervenors as plaintiffs, and voila! standing is miraculously achieved. As I suspected, it happens all the time. So this is no coincidence - i’m quite sure that Rauner’s GC has been working with IPI to find some folks to take that role.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:02 am:
From the union perspective, imagine if your new boss violates your contract and the laws that back it up and sues you, before even meeting you. Unions are the ones who’ve been violated and have standing. Rauner and the IPI are fishing for victims.
- ben franklin - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:03 am:
Democracy states that the majority decides and the minority have to live with it. Workers overwhelmingly voted to unionize. Let Bruce allow everyone who wants to become a merit comp employee become one, get rid of fair share that way. Bet no one would make take that offer.
- Anon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:07 am:
The Minister of Propaganda speaks again.
Remember, BVR expects to lose every step of the way and get lucky at SCOTUS after spending a fortune and wasting judicial resources. It would be hilarious if they denied cert.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 11:54 am:
== get lucky at SCOTUS ==
That’s his game plan … but right now he’s having trouble with getting it into the Federal court system.
== It would be hilarious if they denied cert. ==
Agreed.
- anon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:32 pm:
It’d be even more hilarious if federal suit was dismissed for lack of standing and then motion to intervene denied as moot.
- anon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:37 pm:
Federal Rule 24 on motions to intervene. Federal court does not have to let them in.
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
(2) By a Government Officer or Agency. On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is based on:
(A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or
(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.
(3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.
- Anon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:21 pm:
That would be awesome!
- Anon - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 1:23 pm:
Except they’d probably just pay the $450 and file it as a new case.
- IL17Progressive - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:16 pm:
Rauner wants the federal courts because SCOTUS will take it up. This suit is for justice Alito who in prior Union busting opinion stated needing a case to overturn the original case allowing Union shop states. This is a coordinated effort with ALEC and Koch Bros many subsidiaries.
- IL17Progressive - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:23 pm:
It is not ‘get lucky’ with SCOTUS. Justice Alito has in prior opinion stated he would take the case which brings the other 3 GOP court members so case is accepted. Then with Roberts joining the entire idea of union shop is destroyed nation wide. Rauner would be enshrined in Koch Bros fame!
- Black Ivy - Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 8:30 pm:
My thoughts exactly…