In the last half-year, two Circuit Courts of Appeals have declared the NLRB's ability to issue rulings null and void, because the Most Equal Comrade's appointments to the board were unconstitutional. That hasn't deterred Mr. Solomon.
The NLRB issued 550 decisions with just two board members before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in New Process Steel that the NLRB must have a three-person board quorum to operate. Mr. Solomon brags that of these 550, only about 100 were "impacted" by the Supreme Court's ruling—which, he writes, proves that the NLRB is justified in continuing to operate even at times when its "authority" has been challenged.Mr. Solomon is in fact celebrating that of the 550 outfits harassed by an illegal, two-member board, only about 100 later decided they had the money, time and wherewithal to spend years relitigating in front of the labor goon squad. The NLRB is counting on the same outcome in Cablevision and other recent actions.The board will push through as many rulings and complaints against companies as it can before the Supreme Court rules on its legitimacy. And it will trust that the firms it has attacked and drained will be too weary to then try for reversals. This is why the Obama administration waited so long to petition the Supreme Court to reverse Noel Canning. The longer this process takes, the more damage the NLRB can inflict on behalf of its union taskmasters.
Forget Congress. The edicts of the NLRB, the EPA, the HHS Department and a sprawl of similar agencies, boards and departments answerable only to the overlords is where the action is.
There is dirty pool being played by lawyers on all sides. So what else is new?
ReplyDeleteWhat is "the other side" and what kind of "dirty pool" is it engaged in?
ReplyDeleteThe other side is the plaintiff in an action vs. what is called, as you likely know, a defendant. There have of course been numerous voluminous cases in which NLRB has been a plaintiff when endeavoring to "force" compliance with the law and numerous cases in which NLRB has been a defendant, e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been engaged in many cases vs. NLRB (see http://www.chamberlitigation.com/chamber-commerce-et-al-v-national-labor-relations-board ). You have bemoaned your lack of formal economic education here before. You also exhibit a lack of legal knowledge. It may not be commonsensical, but, if it's legal, there will be lawyers, and, from my experience, this means, primarily delays (for fee padding) and what commonsensically appears to be dirty pool. Oh,you should see the games lawyers play.
ReplyDeleteWell, of course, the Chamber is going to be at odds with a corrupt anti-free market outfit like the NLRB. Any "shady" lawyers involved tell us nothing about the principles at stake.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the Chamber gets it wrong from time to time. But that's hardly the same thing as relentlessly pushing a radical leftwing agenda that just happens to line the pockets of union bosses.
ReplyDeleteThe opportunism occasionally found in the legal profession hardly makes the case for a moral equivalence between the NLRB and the sector of American society engaged in profitable business.
ReplyDeleteSounds good, but the hired hands on both sides are doing what they do, litigating a law. This is not done on yours or anybody else's timetable. I am making no cases for or against what you call "moral equivalence." You think you're right, fine, you may be, but until the lawyers and judges get done with it, that remains to be determined.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'm right. I know so. I stand for things because I've been convinced that they're right. If what is right is not defended publicly, there is no point in trying to have an orderly society.
ReplyDeleteI find no argument with that. It's just that lawyers can and do argue whichever side is their client. They are usually quite smart and all of this plays out like a chess game. You win some, lose some but the lawyers always get paid. You got the bomb bippie, don't let anyone else have it, right?
ReplyDelete“I act with complete certainty. But this certainty is my own.”
ReplyDelete― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
Republicans are now preventing votes on the President’s choices for three D.C. Circuit Court nominees, the Labor Department, the EPA, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and the National Labor Relations Board. The GOP has already broken with hundreds of years of Senate precedent and filibustered the nomination of a Cabinet secretary, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, and used the filibuster to delay John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director.
ReplyDeleteYay!
ReplyDelete