It isn't unethical for a judge to issue a decision in a case that has been heard in his court. You seem to be a little confused as to how all this judicial stuff actually works.
Hmmm. As I understand relevant law, if you reside or function within the jurisdiction of the United States (thereby enjoying the benefits of its governance), you are liable for tax upon your income from whatever souirce derived regardless of your willingness to pay that tax. Selfish, greedy, free-rider wannabes need not apply. We have lovely prison cells waiting for those who are unable to get the point.
Hmmm. Another example of trailer-park logic.
There is no Constitutional right to pretend to be a lawyer on the internet either.
That would depend on whether the original legislation was enacted for purposes of giving expression in context to rights that employees already had. The most recent decision notes that Gov. Walker's legislation arbitrarily creates a system of separate and unequal classes of workers. That would violate pre-existing rights. Opponents will need to find a way around that.
A lawyer would have known that it may or may not be.
So it's fine for a few million taxpayers to be represented by a handful of carefully chosen negotiators, but it ISN'T fine for a few thousand workers to be represented in the same way? Because there is a mystical "just something" about representing workers that makes their representatives "the masters"? I'll file that away under Visions of Sugar Plums.
Actually, he was the first Hispanic judge appointed in Dane County. There are 72 counties in the state of Wisconsin.
Sheesh!!! There are about a hundred unions that either directly or through a local have exclusive recognition with departments and agencies of the federal government. Maybe fact-check something every now and then.
Are correctional officers at federal prisons represented by a union, to your knowledge? And to your knowledge, some 45,000 TSA employees are NOT now represented by AFGE following a contest with NTEU over the summer for rights of representation, but in fact, they are.
If you have standing and can find a case and a court of jurisdiction, you can certainly file.
well I'm a federal employee, and it is definitely against the law for me to unionize.
Math??? The people all agog over entitlement reform tend to be those who can't make change for a dollar. Social Security has a surplus of $2.8 trillion and there are people who actually think it is bankrupt. These folks are examples of financial and mathematical illiterates.
and there are plenty of other federal employees that are not allowed to unionize.
Well, they can't run as candidates in partisan elections, and they can't make political use of their official status or capacity in a range of ways. Anything else?
No, they are often the very same thing with the latter providing the detailed expression of the former and more general principles.
The free-rider problem is an economic issue, not one found in labor relations alone. In general, if you benefit, you have an obligation to pay. Silly whining doesn't remove that obligation. Laws providing fines and jail terms for turnstile-jumpers do not compromise Freedom & Liberty®, but rather contribute to the notion of ordered liberty basic to the operation of any society.
No, there are no chains on any of the people in any of the chairs during a negotiation. The question here is simply over negotiation and whether that should occur on anything resembling a level playing field. Some seem to view "workers" as mere and properly voiceless resources to be exploited rather than as stakeholders to be bargained with. Some seem as well not to recognize the substantial benefits in terms of certainty that amicable labor relations bring. We all have to hope that the people in those sorts of groups never come to be in charge of anything.
So without applying thought or reflection of any sort, you decided to assume that your personal circumstances were identical to those of untold numbers of other federal employees who are not in fact similarly situated? That was obviously a mistake.
Anyone can form a union. Even you and your peers. The question will arise as to the whether your union can gain exclusive bargaining rights with your employer with respect to any actual issues. For instance, since many federal salaries are set by statute, it would be senseless even to seek to bargain wages with an executive branch official. He has no control over the matter either.
Did you mean deficit? Were you sure to select the CBO data that reflect Trust Fund revenue other than payroll tax receipts? Do you meanwhile think it is possible for any entity sitting on $2.8 trillion to be bankrupt? Do you understand that the Trust Fund balances were designed to return to zero, and that if or when they do, the system will not be remotely bankrupt?