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.
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."
