<!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head><body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d35140202\x26blogName\x3dTeachers+vs+Union\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://teachers-vs-union.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://teachers-vs-union.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6791859879166174612', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
0 comments | May 16, 2007 | 4:51 PM | posted by Ryan

We posted the recently filed briefs on the Teachers-vs-Union website. Here is a summary of the briefs.

The WEA filed two documents; 1) a Motion to File Supplemental Brief and 2) a Supplemental Brief.

WEA Motion to File Supplemental Brief – The WEA asks the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to file their supplemental brief.

WEA Supplemental Brief – The WEA says three things:

  1. The WEA brings HB 2079 to the attention of the Supreme Court justices.
  2. The WEA explains that they “urged the courts below to read Sections 760… along the lines of the statutory gloss provided by HB 2079…”
  3. The WEA concludes by trying to put the U.S. Supreme Court Justices in a box. The union tells the High Court that, because HB 2079 changed the law the union admitted to violating, any ruling the Justices issue will only apply to past violations, not the union's future conduct.

Davenport’s Opposition to WEA’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief – The Davenport motion is simply a motion urging the Court to deny the WEA’s motion to file a supplemental brief (the union's first document). It does not address the legal issues raised by the WEA’s Supplemental Brief.

The Davenport motion simply argues that the WEA’s supplemental brief does not address any of the issues that were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, whether in the briefs filed in November or in the oral arguments in January. It concludes:

“For these reasons, § 760 as amended has no application to Davenport, and is not relevant to any issue that is properly before this Court in this case. The Court should deny the motion and proceed to decide this case as briefed, argued and submitted.”

State of Washington’s Motion to File Supplemental Brief and Supplemental Brief – The state’s brief addresses the union's statements presented in its supplemental brief (the WEA's second document, not the first). It asks the court to deny the WEA's brief because it's statements and arguments are wrong.

The state’s brief is in three parts too.

  1. The state agrees with the WEA's statement in its brief that HB 2079 does not render the case moot.
  2. The state argues that the change to 760 “is not relevant to the Question presented” and that the union already admitted to violating the law.
  3. The state argues that HB 2079’s changes to 760 are unconstitutional in light of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

The state concludes by again urging the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision.

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


Post a Comment

<< Home