![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushReestablishConserve585.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\nRUSH: The Supreme Court had a couple decisions today. One of them, big whoop, the FCC didn\u2019t warn Fox and CBS early enough so the F-word was fine as it happened on TV. The F-bomb was inadvertent, the FCC didn\u2019t tell \u2019em soon enough not to do it or what have you. <\/p>\n
Then there was a 7-2 decision where the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals got slapped down along with the Service Employees International Union. Now, in and of itself, it\u2019s not monumental. Well, I could be wrong about that. Some of these Supreme Court decisions, it takes a while for me to digest them. Let me tell you what the decision is first. The Supreme Court today ruled that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop unions. The SEIU argued that their once-a-year warning was sufficient. The court said, no, it\u2019s not. The court said that unions have to give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So if you\u2019re a nonmember of a union but you\u2019re working in a union shop and the union decides to raise dues or whatever, they have to tell you immediately so that you can decide whether you\u2019re gonna accept the new fee and pay it, or not. That\u2019s what the court just decided. I don\u2019t want to make too big of a deal out of this, but I want to read to you from the majority opinion. I\u2019m gonna be very, very brief. “The majority thus decides, for the very first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system in some circumstances [for union dues]: the levying of a special assessment or dues increase.”<\/p>\n
Now, it\u2019s not that big a leap to think that if the court says that for the first time, the majority for the first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system. Meaning, you have to be told before they can make you do this. It\u2019s not that big a leap to think that the court is of the same opinion when it comes to health care and striking down the mandate. So I don\u2019t know. Off the top of my fertile mind, which I\u2019m sure in subsequent e-mails that I will receive in mere moments, will be shot down by legal scholars. In my fertile mind, I\u2019m thinking this could be a tip, a tip-off, an indication. I\u2019m not saying that it is, and I\u2019m not saying that Justice has intended that with the release of this opinion today, but it\u2019s interesting, it\u2019s a 7-2 decision. <\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/RushSupremeCourt2.jpg\"\/)
In and of itself the decision is interesting \u2019cause it slaps down the Ninth Circus and it slaps down the SEIU, who are able to simply levy increases whenever they wanted with nobody being able to opt out of it. And what happened was a nonmember by the name of Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the SEIU wanted to object and opt- out of a $12 million special assessment that the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox said, (paraphrasing) “I don\u2019t want my money going the way you\u2019re gonna spend it.” Now, she\u2019s not a member. She\u2019s a nonmember working in a union shop, and she didn\u2019t want to pay this special assessment. And they said, “Well, you didn\u2019t opt- out in time.” <\/p>\n
She said, “I didn\u2019t know that I had to.”<\/p>\n
“Well, we warned you every year that you have the opportunity.”<\/p>\n