<!-- --><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 22, 2007 | 6:04 PM | posted by Ryan

On Monday, May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed to read the supplemental briefs filed by the WEA and Washington state after HB 2079 was signed by the Governor. The contradictory positions set forth in the union brief will probably amuse and outrage the justices more than enlighten them on the developing aspects of the case.

The Davenport attorneys filed a motion opposing the union’s motion here.

The Washington State Attorney General’s brief addressed the WEA’s arguments. They highlighted the contradictory argument the union is making (“Because of HB 2079, we think the law is now Constitutional, but we still want you to affirm the lower court’s decision and throw out the law.”) and pointed out that the union's preferred interpretation of the law was not constitutional under the Abood case, where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the fraudulent accounting practice HB 2079 implemented.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order granting review of the supplemental briefs here:

MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007, ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home