"Supreme Court looks at labor board; Quorum absence on panel puts its rulings at risk" by Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press | March 24, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court yesterday questioned whether the leading federal agency that referees labor management disputes can make decisions when it has only two people sitting on its five-member board....
The National Labor Relations Board has operated with only two members for more than two years because Democrats refused to confirm President George W. Bush’s nominees because of complaints that they were probusiness. Republicans now are blocking President Obama’s nominees, complaining that some favor union interests.
And you are paying for it all, taxpayers.
All over a movement -- unless you are a "public servant" or a baseball player -- that is terminal.
Decisions in hundreds of worker-employer battles could be thrown out if the Supreme Court rules against the NLRB. That decision could also force the shutdown of the board....
At this point, I'm for anything that rolls back this leviathan of tyranny.
The NLRB is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing relations between unions and employers.
Government gave it to you to prevent you from going socialist at the time, America.
That was at the height of the Great Depression, when this country was ready to go red because of the robber barons and industrialists of Wall Street.
The five members are nominated to five-year terms by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate.
--more--"
More work from the court:
WASHINGTON - A corporation’s principal place of business is where its executives work, not where its products are sold, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The unanimous ruling will probably make it harder to sue out-of-state corporations in state courts, which are considered friendlier to class-action lawsuits than are federal courts....
Sticking up for states rights over the corporations, I see.
--more--"
Related: The Corrupted Court
I guess the ruling isn't surprising, is it?
Related: U.S. Tortures for China
A Disabled and Deaf Supreme Court
I guess they couldn't hear the tortured screams.
--more--"
But they will hear this agenda-pushing case:
WASHINGTON - In other action yesterday, the court accepted a case brought by parents who want to sue drug companies over vaccines they say caused serious health problems for their children. Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz say their infant daughter was harmed by Wyeth’s vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
So they can absolve drug companies, that's why they took it.
--more--"
Related: Nationwide Revolt Against Dangerous Vaccines Accelerates
Yeah, we all know the mercury in the vaccines was a bad idea.
"Mutual-fund fee case standard upheld" by Associated Press | March 31, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court rejected a lower court standard yesterday that investors say would have made it almost impossible for them to sue over “excessive’’ fees on mutual funds, a popular investment vehicle for millions of Americans....
Deciding in favor of investors. Not a surprise.
In another decision yesterday, the high court restricted whistle-blower lawsuits alleging local governments misused federal money, in a decision that produced newcomer Sonia Sotomayor’s first dissenting opinion.
Who is this court working for, folks?
--more--"
Also see: High court OK’s Fla. Miranda warning
