UNEPSE v. Northeast Region

[Marokai Backbeat]

I will be appearing for the Respondent, Northeast Region.

*whistles innocently*

[Marokai Backbeat]

cinyc still has until 5:00 PM today Marokai.

That he did, Spade.

[Marokai Backbeat]

In formulating my personal views of this case for the other Justices, I've had a hell of a time figuring out clause 5. Cinyc, please explain the following clauses and what they do out for me more clearly. (Clause 5 is poorly worded, who wrote that dreadful paragraph for goodness sake?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ah, so Section 5 is as I feared, then. It removes any incentive to join a union in an effort to marginalize them. Very well then.

Section 6, too, is as I feared, as it seems the Northeast region is determining, yourselves, union procedures.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would like to state, this opinion was posted in haste, and there will likely be a 'correction' of sorts. Stay tuned, please.

(By 'correction' I mean additional details.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Thanks, Opebo. And everyone else, for their patience.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case in front of me was not whether the bill itself was unconstitutional. The only question in front of me was whether the union should be held liable for the damages. I don't see why the court took it upon themselves to rule on the constitutionality of a bill that wasn't even presented to them for consideration.

It was presented to us by the union, debated behind the scenes between the Justices, defended by Cinyc. It's directly related to the case, and just because it wasn't discussed in the previous ruling by you, doesn't mean we don't have the power to address it ourselves if we think it's appropriate.

Also, if you have these sort of concerns, how about bringing them up before we write an opinion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case in front of me was not whether the bill itself was unconstitutional. The only question in front of me was whether the union should be held liable for the damages. I don't see why the court took it upon themselves to rule on the constitutionality of a bill that wasn't even presented to them for consideration.

It was presented to us by the union, debated behind the scenes between the Justices, defended by Cinyc. It's directly related to the case, and just because it wasn't discussed in the previous ruling by you, doesn't mean we don't have the power to address it ourselves if we think it's appropriate.

Also, if you have these sort of concerns, how about bringing them up before we write an opinion.

The ruling was what was being appealed, not the legislation.

We know that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case in front of me was not whether the bill itself was unconstitutional. The only question in front of me was whether the union should be held liable for the damages. I don't see why the court took it upon themselves to rule on the constitutionality of a bill that wasn't even presented to them for consideration.

It was presented to us by the union, debated behind the scenes between the Justices, defended by Cinyc. It's directly related to the case, and just because it wasn't discussed in the previous ruling by you, doesn't mean we don't have the power to address it ourselves if we think it's appropriate.

I disagree on its appropriateness. It had nothing to do with the question at hand. The question at hand was whether the union was liable for the damages. That's it.

Rowan, the union claimed to be striking for a reason, that reason being the Practical Labor Policy Act. They were taken the court, and you ruled the strike illegal and ordered the union to pay back the damages. They appealed.

This was not strictly about the strike damages, this was about the strike entirely. Nothing prevents us from going into more in each case, and in fact, it would be stupid to expect us to not evaluate the underlying reasons for the strike in the first place, especially since Purple State presented his arguments on the Practical Labor Policy Act in his submission to the court, and we decided to address it. There is nothing that prevents the Court from doing that, case closed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure how I was supposed to know that you would go beyond the actual ruling just so that you could strike down a law that you perceive to be "anti-union."
[/quote]

As I said before, we were arguing over the Act, PS submitted arguments on the Act, I asked questions on the Act, cinyc defended the Act. No clearer indication could be given that we were evaluating the constitutionality of the Practical Labor Policy Act.

Realistically though, the Act was very likely to be challenged by someone else. Purple State had every reason to challenge it and did so, but Barnes was almost surely going to go after it as well, and this ruling would've just been delayed by a few weeks. You win nothing by complaining about a case that is 100% over.

[Marokai Backbeat]

II - The "Practical Labor Policy Act"

I dissent in full with the Court's decision on the Act as the issue of the Act's constitutionality is not yet ripe for adjudication.

It's a shame this opinion never came up during our private deliberations..

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's funny, only after the fact did I remember that there exists a Workers' Bill of Rights in Atlasia statute, which I assume extends to the regions. That includes, "The right of workers to organize and act in concert shall not be impeded by the government of Atlasia or any institution under the jurisdiction of Atlasian Law."

I did bring that up in private and I actually included a paragraph referencing it in my initial draft of the 'addendum' but, for some reason, I scrapped it. Not entirely sure why, in retrospect.