Don’t see how it helps Rauner. This is Illinois. All the union haters are red state republicans that hate someone having the ability to obtain a decent wage.
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically.
Its a big plus with his money people. Uihlien, Griffith and Zell will be very grateful for this perceived victory. Maybe even enough to embrace him, its the money that counts with those three…
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically
-Why because that big ol employer needs more power? Your corporation needs more power? No thank you.
What is wrong with Union haters? Like who hates the idea of a Union that workers join to help them help each other to live a better life and bargain on decent wages, benefits, and worker protections? Like who in a sane mind would hate something like that unless you have HATE in your heart? Do you hate that a group of people you don’t like are in some of these Unions and you rather them living in poverty? Also, why is it everytime I come across a Union hater its usually always some white republican guy? Its like you rarely see any minority Union haters.
The outcomeis predictable. What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation? Unions have to fairly represent even those who do not join and would not pay dues. That legal duty seems untenable if unions cannot seek fair compensation for that representation.
I’d think if he is out in Washington to celebrate the expected anti-union decision, he’ll be pre-celebrating his November loss. A win in Janus is nothing to gloat about in what is still a blue state. As Dee Lay pointed out, union members voted for him last time based on false promises things would be better than under Quinn. There’s no way the cowboy, motorcylce-ridin’ shtick will work on union members this time.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:06 am:
“He’ll frame it as fighting Madigan and the machine, and winning.”
It’s about crippling the political opposition and not about employee rights, for Rauner. It’s about ultimately trying to jam employees with harsh cuts. No way in the world does Rauner want to strengthen employees.
Will Rauner go after public employee unions by name in his campaign if Janus wins, or will he cloak it in hidden language, like corrupt insiders?
This might turn out, though, to be careful what you wish for. Fat and lethargic won’t fly anymore. Unions will have to and will start working and producing results.
===I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.===
- RNUG -
You came up in a convo I had last night. I stated that your take is my “hope” as there is a legal possibility for that type of ruling, especially with a clearer need here to talk to the Abood precedent, not the standing of Janus.
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.
It’s folly to speculate why or why not a decision hasn’t come down. The Supremes can send back their decisions for rewrites by their clerks time and time again.
Union Lawyer == What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation?==
If they don’t simply follow their precedent, they have to address this question because Janus’ claim is that he should not be required to accept representation by the union because that representation (including contract negotiations) is inherently political and the union’s negotiating positions are contrary to his political views. If they agree that he has a valid 1st Amendment complaint against the unions that entitles him to some remedy, they have to address the representation issue.
- rivfun@yahoo.com - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:50 am:
The Governor’s out of state? Quick, somebody re-key the locks and change all passcodes! /snark
On a more serious note re Janus, reading the SCOTUS tea leaves is always difficult. Maybe call Vegas for the line on the decision?
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.
Gotta ask if GOvJun was partially in DC to w** himself on the SCOTUS steps WHAT ELSE was on the “to do” list? And why would he issue a release?
And why does CaptFax — all rested, tan — believe GovJunk only down 9? No one should trust any poll that much.
==If Janus wins I guess we will see just how many members LOVE their unions by the drop numbers==
I’m not sure you quite understand the issue here. No one is required to join the union. If you don’t like ‘em, you can drop ‘em right now. Janus is merely about making sure the union is compensated for the non-political work it does on each worker’s behalf, because the unions are legally required to represent each worker even if they don’t join.
I don’t think it’s possible to over-estimate the importance of Janus to Rauner. Assuming the Court finds for Janus, this is everything Rauner has advocated for throughout his public life. This is the whole enchilada for Rauner. He will declare victory on the courthouse steps. And if he was a decent man, he’d resign on the spot too, just for good measure.
No, he’s going to DC simply and only to spike the football. He just wishes Illinois had an aircraft carrier he could land on and, wearing his flight suit costume, he could declare “mission accomplished.”
“I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.”
I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding.
I’m curious to see how it plays out for Rauner. The (true) conservative flank of the party spearheaded and financed this suit. If they remain peeved at Rauner for HB 40, etc., they may not take kindly to him claiming their victory as his own?
Union Haters. Union Lovers. That language, in itself, tells the story. Nationwide. I am union thru and thru. Literally I have all my trade work union performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?
performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?
-The same can be said about just any organization.. Not entirely sure what your point is but recalling your post history I thought you leaned republican anyway.
== I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding. ==
If a court can find a way to avoid a ruling they will. Cases are often decided or overturned on technical or procedural issues.
One pension case I’m watching in another state ignored the constitutionality issue because the court could overturn the law on improper procedure passing the law. We haven’t heard the last of that case. I ran it past a lawyer friend who used to work for the Legislature here and he agrees it is interesting and might have a major impact here in the long run. Let’s just say if it stands and if it is applied to other states, “business as usual” in the GA will drastically change. I
He went out to ask that the decision be delayed so it is closer to the election? Unions already mad at him and he has tv ad waiting how he saved workers for the unions.
This ruling could have a much wider impact than just unions. I would have to guess if a corporation makes a political donation that a shareholder disagrees with, the shareholder could use a ruling for Janus as a basis for a suit.
So if the Supreme Court looks at that side of the issue, they may defer their decision.
According to Scotusblog, there will be additional decisions tomorrow at 10am. That has to be the end of the session and so Janus should be released tomorrow morning.
Wondering @ 11:20 == Whatever, not being required to accept representation does not equate with not being required to offer representation. ==
You miss the point. The union will still have to offer representation, but Janus is saying he must be allowed to opt out of that representation, meaning he will not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement. If he is still covered, he’s being forced to accept a contract binding on himself based on a union’s political activity that is contrary to his political preferences. His 1st amendment claim is that he must be allowed to negotiate his own deal.
The Republicans are once again attacking working families by trying to destroy unions that provide employment protections. We must vote out all republicans
- Mike Cirrincione - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 2:25 pm:
@whatever
Based on your post I disagree with my wireless carriers use of my money to lobby for political activity that is against my political preferences. Same thing with the use of my tax dollars.
Whatever, 2 separate things. His arguement is based on the 1st amendment. The requirement to represent is from Taft Hartley. You miss the point I was making
wondering - I know your point. You’re missing my point — Janus’ claim is that the requirement to represent is unconstitutional when the union’s representation in contract negotiations is actually the advocating a political position with which he disagrees. If mandatory representation in contract negotiations is constitutional, he has no 1st amendment complaint that he is required to pay for the representation.
help me out here but AFSME is a collective bargaining group not really a union? Not everyone gets the same pay for the same work or even more production(piece work.
I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership.
=== I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership. ===
That could also give leverage to the union where they could say, “If you can offer non-union employees higher pay, then union employees should be able to get the same.”
AFSCME is a union bargaining agent. Members are the union. Every union member in the same title is on the same pay scale; same as other unions. AFSCME represents members in many different titles from doctors and lawyers to police, nurses and sanitation workers. Do you think all those titles should pay the same because they are represented by the same union?
–Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media? What a weird person.–
There’s a Goat a few blocks away from the Supremes building by Union Station. Maybe he’s hanging out there for a third day, waiting for his 10-second TV pop.
I doubt they have thousand-dollar-bottles of wine, though. I imagine you have to run through about 100 bottles of wine at the Goat before you hit the $1,000 mark.
- Dee Lay - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:24 am:
Is it better or worse for Rauner re-election if Janus is successful?
- Mr.Black - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:33 am:
It’s good for his re-election. He’ll frame it as fighting Madigan and the machine, and winning.
- Dee Lay - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:35 am:
He won last time because so many union members voted for him - that is not the case now.
Again, who is his constituency?
- Real - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:35 am:
Don’t see how it helps Rauner. This is Illinois. All the union haters are red state republicans that hate someone having the ability to obtain a decent wage.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:36 am:
–I’m hearing Gov. Rauner went out to DC at least partly in anticipation of a ruling today.–
Maybe he’ll stop and visit with all those administration and Congressional leaders he claims he talks to all the time about weighty issues.
“That Rauner, R-A-U-N-E-R…..”
- Perrid - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:37 am:
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically.
- Board Watcher - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:38 am:
Its a big plus with his money people. Uihlien, Griffith and Zell will be very grateful for this perceived victory. Maybe even enough to embrace him, its the money that counts with those three…
- Real - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:42 am:
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically
-Why because that big ol employer needs more power? Your corporation needs more power? No thank you.
- Rabid - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:51 am:
If the union was republican, this could of all been avoided
- Real - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:01 am:
What is wrong with Union haters? Like who hates the idea of a Union that workers join to help them help each other to live a better life and bargain on decent wages, benefits, and worker protections? Like who in a sane mind would hate something like that unless you have HATE in your heart? Do you hate that a group of people you don’t like are in some of these Unions and you rather them living in poverty? Also, why is it everytime I come across a Union hater its usually always some white republican guy? Its like you rarely see any minority Union haters.
- Union lawyer - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:04 am:
The outcomeis predictable. What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation? Unions have to fairly represent even those who do not join and would not pay dues. That legal duty seems untenable if unions cannot seek fair compensation for that representation.
- Tommy boy - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:05 am:
I’d think if he is out in Washington to celebrate the expected anti-union decision, he’ll be pre-celebrating his November loss. A win in Janus is nothing to gloat about in what is still a blue state. As Dee Lay pointed out, union members voted for him last time based on false promises things would be better than under Quinn. There’s no way the cowboy, motorcylce-ridin’ shtick will work on union members this time.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:06 am:
“He’ll frame it as fighting Madigan and the machine, and winning.”
It’s about crippling the political opposition and not about employee rights, for Rauner. It’s about ultimately trying to jam employees with harsh cuts. No way in the world does Rauner want to strengthen employees.
Will Rauner go after public employee unions by name in his campaign if Janus wins, or will he cloak it in hidden language, like corrupt insiders?
- wondering - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:10 am:
You got it Union Lawyer. Whatta ya bet the Supremes just sidestep that? It will take years and another suit to remove that requirement.
- wondering - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:15 am:
This might turn out, though, to be careful what you wish for. Fat and lethargic won’t fly anymore. Unions will have to and will start working and producing results.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:16 am:
==Is it better or worse for Rauner re-election if Janus is successful?==
Push. He’ll frame it as a victory, but it fires up the unions while being too abstract for everyone else.
But when you’re down double-digits, you root for *anything* that changes the status quo.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:18 am:
===when you’re down double-digits, you root for *anything* that changes the status quo===
Yup. But he’s “only” down 9.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:22 am:
If/when(?) a ruling comes down and if Janus wins… Rauner, he and Diana, will have spent $112 million to take down labor…
… and Rauner got 2 in 5 households to vote for him in 2014.
“You think Quinn learned his lesson?” - fake labor voter who may be upset if Janus wins, and is confused what exactly is going on.
Labor needs Rauner’s numbers to be 1 in 5 or better 1 in 6…
Can they get it? We’ll see.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:25 am:
I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.
- Mike Cirrincione - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:25 am:
If the Court decides against unions, it opens up a huge can of worms about First Amendment Rights.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:28 am:
Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk Rauner thought. Bet they send it back for a trial to get facts into evidence
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:28 am:
===I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.===
- RNUG -
You came up in a convo I had last night. I stated that your take is my “hope” as there is a legal possibility for that type of ruling, especially with a clearer need here to talk to the Abood precedent, not the standing of Janus.
One can hope.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:30 am:
===Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk===
Maybe or maybe not. IIRC, they waited until the final day to announce the gay marriage decision, which was pretty darned sweeping.
- Stumpy's bunker - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:32 am:
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.
- Stumpy's bunker - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:40 am:
sorry, meant for @Dee Lay at 9:35a
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:41 am:
It’s folly to speculate why or why not a decision hasn’t come down. The Supremes can send back their decisions for rewrites by their clerks time and time again.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:43 am:
===Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk===
The schedule of released decisions doesn’t necessarily indicate any haggling.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:45 am:
–Gov @BruceRauner staying another day in DC to be at Supreme Court Tuesday in case #Janus opinion comes out. #TWILL. –
So he’s going to blow two days in DC on the taxpayer dime for the chance he might get a Supreme Court building background for a TV pop?
Dude has a lot of time on his hands.
- Whatever - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:49 am:
Union Lawyer == What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation?==
If they don’t simply follow their precedent, they have to address this question because Janus’ claim is that he should not be required to accept representation by the union because that representation (including contract negotiations) is inherently political and the union’s negotiating positions are contrary to his political views. If they agree that he has a valid 1st Amendment complaint against the unions that entitles him to some remedy, they have to address the representation issue.
- rivfun@yahoo.com - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:50 am:
The Governor’s out of state? Quick, somebody re-key the locks and change all passcodes! /snark
On a more serious note re Janus, reading the SCOTUS tea leaves is always difficult. Maybe call Vegas for the line on the decision?
- Real - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:52 am:
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.
-When and where? Right now it’s the opposite.
- Sue - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:53 am:
If Janus wins I guess we will see just how many members LOVE their unions by the drop numbers
- Rabid - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:01 am:
this is not the venue for decertifying a union
- Annonin' - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:07 am:
Gotta ask if GOvJun was partially in DC to w** himself on the SCOTUS steps WHAT ELSE was on the “to do” list? And why would he issue a release?
And why does CaptFax — all rested, tan — believe GovJunk only down 9? No one should trust any poll that much.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:14 am:
==If Janus wins I guess we will see just how many members LOVE their unions by the drop numbers==
I’m not sure you quite understand the issue here. No one is required to join the union. If you don’t like ‘em, you can drop ‘em right now. Janus is merely about making sure the union is compensated for the non-political work it does on each worker’s behalf, because the unions are legally required to represent each worker even if they don’t join.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:17 am:
===Dude has a lot of time on his hands.===
I don’t think it’s possible to over-estimate the importance of Janus to Rauner. Assuming the Court finds for Janus, this is everything Rauner has advocated for throughout his public life. This is the whole enchilada for Rauner. He will declare victory on the courthouse steps. And if he was a decent man, he’d resign on the spot too, just for good measure.
No, he’s going to DC simply and only to spike the football. He just wishes Illinois had an aircraft carrier he could land on and, wearing his flight suit costume, he could declare “mission accomplished.”
- wondering - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:20 am:
Whatever, not being required to accept representation does not equate with not being required to offer representation.
- Centennial - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:38 am:
“I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.”
I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding.
I’m curious to see how it plays out for Rauner. The (true) conservative flank of the party spearheaded and financed this suit. If they remain peeved at Rauner for HB 40, etc., they may not take kindly to him claiming their victory as his own?
- BlueDogDem - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:55 am:
Union Haters. Union Lovers. That language, in itself, tells the story. Nationwide. I am union thru and thru. Literally I have all my trade work union performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?
- Real - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?
-The same can be said about just any organization.. Not entirely sure what your point is but recalling your post history I thought you leaned republican anyway.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:08 pm:
== I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding. ==
If a court can find a way to avoid a ruling they will. Cases are often decided or overturned on technical or procedural issues.
One pension case I’m watching in another state ignored the constitutionality issue because the court could overturn the law on improper procedure passing the law. We haven’t heard the last of that case. I ran it past a lawyer friend who used to work for the Legislature here and he agrees it is interesting and might have a major impact here in the long run. Let’s just say if it stands and if it is applied to other states, “business as usual” in the GA will drastically change. I
- Generic Drone - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
Hope Rauner took a couple of extra buck$ with him. Ya know Washington is expen$ive.
- Publius - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:36 pm:
He went out to ask that the decision be delayed so it is closer to the election? Unions already mad at him and he has tv ad waiting how he saved workers for the unions.
- A Jack - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:50 pm:
This ruling could have a much wider impact than just unions. I would have to guess if a corporation makes a political donation that a shareholder disagrees with, the shareholder could use a ruling for Janus as a basis for a suit.
So if the Supreme Court looks at that side of the issue, they may defer their decision.
- Anonimity - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:51 pm:
According to Scotusblog, there will be additional decisions tomorrow at 10am. That has to be the end of the session and so Janus should be released tomorrow morning.
- Montrose - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:55 pm:
“Sir, the Supreme Court building is closing for the day. I am going to have to ask you to leave the steps.”
- Whatever - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
Wondering @ 11:20 == Whatever, not being required to accept representation does not equate with not being required to offer representation. ==
You miss the point. The union will still have to offer representation, but Janus is saying he must be allowed to opt out of that representation, meaning he will not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement. If he is still covered, he’s being forced to accept a contract binding on himself based on a union’s political activity that is contrary to his political preferences. His 1st amendment claim is that he must be allowed to negotiate his own deal.
- Richie - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
The Republicans are once again attacking working families by trying to destroy unions that provide employment protections. We must vote out all republicans
- Mike Cirrincione - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 2:25 pm:
@whatever
Based on your post I disagree with my wireless carriers use of my money to lobby for political activity that is against my political preferences. Same thing with the use of my tax dollars.
- wondering - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 2:43 pm:
Whatever, 2 separate things. His arguement is based on the 1st amendment. The requirement to represent is from Taft Hartley. You miss the point I was making
- Whatever - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:16 pm:
wondering - I know your point. You’re missing my point — Janus’ claim is that the requirement to represent is unconstitutional when the union’s representation in contract negotiations is actually the advocating a political position with which he disagrees. If mandatory representation in contract negotiations is constitutional, he has no 1st amendment complaint that he is required to pay for the representation.
- California Guy - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:20 pm:
Fair solution is to remove the requirement to pay a fair share fee AND remove the bargaining requirement.
Que all the haters.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:44 pm:
–Que all the haters.–
Que?
No entiendo.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 5:35 pm:
help me out here but AFSME is a collective bargaining group not really a union? Not everyone gets the same pay for the same work or even more production(piece work.
- Mama - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 5:42 pm:
“Again, who is his constituency?”
People whom don’t take the time to get all of the Facts.
- Steve Polite - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:20 pm:
California Guy,
I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:21 pm:
- Centennial -
I’m basing my guess on what happened in a IDOR case in the 1980’s. It only went to the IL SC, not SCOTUS, but it was close to the same argument.
- Raccoon Mario - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:29 pm:
=== I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership. ===
That could also give leverage to the union where they could say, “If you can offer non-union employees higher pay, then union employees should be able to get the same.”
- Steve Polite - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:29 pm:
Anonymous @5:35,
AFSCME is a union bargaining agent. Members are the union. Every union member in the same title is on the same pay scale; same as other unions. AFSCME represents members in many different titles from doctors and lawyers to police, nurses and sanitation workers. Do you think all those titles should pay the same because they are represented by the same union?
- BlueDogDem - Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:38 pm:
I am hearing Rauner was denied service at the Red Hen for his vote on SB40.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 7:21 am:
We’re all aware that Rauner is not a party to this case? He had no standing, he’s not paying for it, his lawyers didn’t argue it.
If you read the chronically uninformed Kass, you’d think this was Rauner’s deal.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 7:46 am:
Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media? What a weird person.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 8:08 am:
–Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media? What a weird person.–
There’s a Goat a few blocks away from the Supremes building by Union Station. Maybe he’s hanging out there for a third day, waiting for his 10-second TV pop.
I doubt they have thousand-dollar-bottles of wine, though. I imagine you have to run through about 100 bottles of wine at the Goat before you hit the $1,000 mark.
- 17% Solution - Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:15 pm:
“Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media?” Those cash filled envelopes won’t distibute themselves.