Restaurant tells Governor where to stick his fines... And wins in Court

Posted by $ blarman 3 months, 1 week ago to Politics
18 comments | Share | Flag

Now one should carefully examine why the judge ruled against the government: because the Department of Agriculture didn't have the authority to levy fines. Now even though the Governor has said he'll appeal - its a wasted effort when all he has to do is serve the fines legally.

It's all still garbage and an infringement on one's rights to be in business, but I don't think this one is over...
SOURCE URL: https://www.theblaze.com/news/italian-restaurant-owners-beat-pennsylvania-governor-in-court

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Commander 3 months ago
    From everything I am seeing, I think most of the Governors across the upper mid-west will be replaced in the next cycle. Midwest Nice has it's break point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 months ago
      And Michigan leads the pack...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 3 months ago
        The inner city and large unions are shifting in MN, WI, MI and PA. I don't think there will be enough to shift IL though....that would be handspring time!
        PA union head Shawn Steffee....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPOrlLdXgJ0
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 months ago
          Can you imagine what would happen if the unions finally gave up on their Democratic taskmasters? The unions donate nearly a billion $ every year to Democratic coffers. Every one of those unions which flips would be a "yuge" deal.

          (Chicago will never flip because Illinois is a union-mandated state. They'd have to revoke that law and give employers time to shake out before it would even think about shifting. And you can bet that because Democrats have always been in charge they aren't about to let their cash cow get strung up to make hamburger!)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Commander 3 months ago
            So....this has been some of my casual reading on history of labor unions.....don't hold your breath reading...you Will pass out.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 months ago
              (From the text) "More generally, business owners are used to being in charge, and they don't want to be hassled by people they have come to think of as mere employees, not as breadwinners for their families or citizens of the same city and country."

              Uh, how about switching that around and presenting the employees as the greedy ones benefiting from the capital investments of the business owners to become breadwinners in the first place? [eyes rolling]

              "But industrial development in the early nineteenth century slowly widened the gap between employers and skilled workers, so the workers began to think of industrial factories as a threat to both their wages and status."

              Automation is always a threat to labor. That's not the employers' faults, however. Workers don't have a right to a job at a specific wage. What you do have a right to do is go your own way and out-compete. Or change your line of work.

              "However, the new labor leaders did speak out against increasingly frequent claims by publicists of the day (building on the ideas of Adam Smith) that the new economic conditions were simply due to abstract and neutral economic laws, which of course became a familiar refrain for employers and all those social scientists who think that it's all about free markets and not at all about power..."

              Economic laws are as neutral as they can be. It's called Reality and there's nothing you can do about it - except complain and lose your job. Should employers be fair to their employees? It's in their interest so YES. But who has the most to lose? The worker who loses a job or the employer who loses all their capital AND their job?

              "Instead, the concept of collective bargaining is the outcome of a power struggle that reflects the underlying balance of power in favor of the corporations."

              At least the author admits his own bias...

              "Furthermore, the federal government had to take over the railroads in 1917 because their owners could not make deliveries in a timely and efficient way, thereby hampering the war effort."

              Yeah, right. I'm going to bet there was something else going on here and it had to do with government bureaucracy...

              "However, there was concern on the part of Southern Democrats about the possible inclusion of agriculture as an "industry," because they did not want to provide any encouragement toward unionization on the part of what was at the time a completely subjugated, and overwhelmingly African American, workforce."

              What? Democrats were taking advantage of blacks even in the 1930's? Say it ain't so! (It was so.)

              "It also seemed possible that the employers in those industries had reason to hope that bargains with unions might help put an end to destructive competition through cuts in wages and prices..."

              Not sure who's arguing this but one of the two is delusional. Neither is looking at the market conditions - including technology - but are relying on historical precedent as an excuse to do nothing. That's not how to run a successful business.

              Question to the author: what is an "ultraconservative." (This word gets used extensively when talking about political wrangling in the 1930's, but it references Democrats which even twenty years earlier had turned towards Progressivism under Woodrow Wilson.)

              "The only solace for organized labor was that it fended off repeated efforts by the conservative coalition to eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act and restrict union involvement in politics..."

              This author needs to do more history on the Davis-Bacon Act and its damaging effects. First, the Act was created solely to allow unionized whites to maintain government contracts for roads in the face of black-owned entrepreneurship. Second, it has been primarily responsible for the high costs of transportation here in the United States where a typical Federal construction project pays labor at a minimum of $35/hr while a commensurate state project typically starts at $13/hr.

              Final note: look at that last graph noting public sector union growth/size. Of all the evils in this world next to socialism, public sector unions are definitely top five for me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Commander 3 months ago
                This is an essay of comprehensive overview. We can read into this with individual bias filter. A more comprehensive work is in Domhoff's 2020 publication with an overwhelming amount of sources. Notwithstanding, the labor union shift has been slowly diminishing in power since the 70's. Yet, when focused in one political direction is a game changer Dem or Rep.
                "Bill" Domhoff is a sociologist studying and publishing about the Corporate Rich and Power Elite since the late 60's. I don't agree with everything, yet is the most comprehensive work on the vieing for power I have encountered to date.
                My dad is in his mid 80's and making comment on what he experienced in his life and his culture from 70 years ago.....as in; Oh....that's what my (.....) meant when. The massive amount of information available with a search and download makes critique so easy now as opposed to 20 years ago, and how many have been of any training to objectively filter what has transpired?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 months ago
    They are lucky the local authorities were behind them. If they hadn't been it would have been too large a mob of governments to fight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 months ago
      I think most law enforcement officers recognize the difference between a real law and political persecution. Most LEO's have enough crap to deal with to add to it these ridiculous rules. I suspect that is one reason many of the leftists want to get rid of LEO's and install brown shirts instead.

      Of course, they won't call them brown shirts, they'll call them neighborhood intervention assistants or some such nonsense. And then people will start disappearing. Just like in Socialist Russia, Socialist China, Socialist Germany, Socialist North Korea, Socialist Cuba... Hmmm.... I wonder why I'm seeing a pattern here... [/s]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 3 months ago
    I am hoping ALL OF THIS CRAP leads to a movement to more BOLDLY state protect our rights against government intrusion.

    Never Again should be our MOTTO. The govt may ASK, but may NOT DICTATE.

    AOC is right. This is our WWII... The only question is if the Generals and Soldiers will show up for our side!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 3 months ago
    I like it, but I'm far from confident the ruling will stick. Or that the state won't find some other pretext to shut them down anyway.

    What's needed is constitutional change, so that operating a business becomes a fundamental right, not dependent on licenses that can be revoked on a whim.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo