Alabama Right News: MI Court of Appeals Goes Rogue, Refuses Unanimous MI Supreme Court Order To Explain Dismissal Of For

Friday, September 24, 2010

MI Court of Appeals Goes Rogue, Refuses Unanimous MI Supreme Court Order To Explain Dismissal Of For

The Michigan Court of Appeals just went off the rails involving the absurd case of unions bilking private babysitters that work for nobody but parents. The babysitters sued but the case was dismissed without comment. The Court of Appeals then took the case and dismissed it.. without comment. So the case was appealed to the MI Supreme Court where the justices unanimously threw the case back to the appeals court with the directive to justify why it was dismissed. The AP begrudgingly had to report that development and painted as good a narrative as possible: Critics of child-care union get favorable ruling

The Michigan Supreme Court ordered a lower court today to explain why it dismissed a lawsuit challenging the unionization of 40,000 child-care providers who work at home.

The justices sent the case back to the state appeals court, which had ruled against three women with a six-word sentence in December.

And from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy: Court of Appeals Must Explain Itself

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Michigan Court of Appeals must explain why it rejected a lawsuit regarding the forced unionization of small-business owners, according to the Detroit Free Press.

...The Grand Rapids Press editorialized against the scheme, saying it "violates the basic constitutional rights of freedom of association," while the Livingston Daily Press & Argus also editorialized on the issue, calling it "an under-the-radar method of padding the union pockets." WTOP Radio in Washington, D.C., WLUC-TV6 in Negaunee, WILX-TV10 in Lansing, WLNS-TV6 in Lansing, WHMI-93.5FM in Howell, WEYI-TV25 in Saginaw, the Petoskey News-Review, the Midland Daily News and The Flint Journal also covered the story.

Patrick J. Wright, director of the MCLF, was a guest on "The Frank Beckmann Show" on WJR AM760 today to discuss the Supreme Court's decision.

It has come to light today, however, that the appeals court is essentially refusing the order. From the Mackinac Center via email: Michigan Court of Appeals' Second Terse Dismissal of Day Care Union Suit Again Fails to Address Core Legal Questions

In a court order received yesterday afternoon, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Human Services on behalf of home-based day care owners and "again failed to address key questions" in doing so, said Patrick J. Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. Wright, who filed the lawsuit against the DHS on behalf of Sherry Loar of Petoskey, Michelle Berry of Flint and Paulette Silverson of Brighton, said he expects to file a motion for reconsideration at the Court of Appeals. "For the second time, the Court of Appeals failed to discuss how private business owners can be made to pay dues to a government employees union," Wright said. "In fact, the Court of Appeals entered just four sentences of legal assertions, and those managed to avoid the key legal questions. This is surprising, given that the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ordered the Court of Appeals to explain its first dismissal of the lawsuit.

"The core legal issues are plain," Wright added. "Michigan's constitution specifically states that only the Legislature can make people into public employees. No one disputes this. And nobody disputes that the Legislature never made home-based day care providers into government employees. The Court of Appeals should not sanction this radical and unconstitutional conversion of private employers into government employees with a mere four sentences of so-called 'analysis.'"

The lawsuit seeks to end the DHS' withholding of "union dues" from child care subsidy checks sent to some 40,000 home-based day care providers on behalf of low-income parents who qualify for government assistance.

Wright noted that the Court of Appeals' terse response stands in stark contrast to its 2008 actions in a case concerning the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now ballot initiative.

"Both cases sought the same remedy, and both concerned suspicious activity by major political forces that had overstepped the bounds of the Michigan Constitution," Wright said. "But the RMGN case, which involved the reorganization of state government, was addressed in an expedited fashion and fully explored by the Court of Appeals. This day care case, which involves a shady process that has funneled millions of dollars to the governor's political allies from tens of thousands of unsuspecting business owners and day care workers, deserves at least the same judicial consideration."

So basically they took the SCOM order and wiped their activist arses with it. This is the absurd situation in a nutshell: You are a private babysitter. Parents pay you to watch a few kids each day in your own home. If any of those parents are getting state help for babysitting? Guess what - you are now a union member. You don't work for the state or anyone else save the parents, and the union provides nothing for you. That's right - as I have posted on before, and the Detroit Free Press begrudgingly admits, the 'union' doesn't provide collective bargaining to private babysitters. Or healthcare. Or... well... anything. The private babysitter set their own working hours. And they set their own working conditions. The illegal union is simply collecting $3.7 million and returning nothing. Nor can any of the babysitters get a hold of any union officials. What's next for Michigan, force-unionizing the unemployed because they get a check from the government? Force-unionizing private doctors if they accept Medicare patients? It's just a money grab that the Granholm regime set up illegally. by fiat created a shell corporation out of whole cloth, the defunded but somehow still operational Michigan Home Based Child Care Council (MHBCCC), that forces union dues out of private babysitters to fill union coffers that will then be used to elect more puppet Democrats that give even more power and money to the unions, rinse, repeat, etc in perpetuity. Kathy Hoekstra of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy did some digging on the issue:

How is this not outright fraud again? Rush Limbaugh even picked up on this not long ago:

This is a sad episode of violating the 13th amendment and enslaving private babysitters for the benefit of unions. She and her regime have denied having anything to do with it, but a video has surfaced where she is caught bragging about the illegal maneuver that has been challenged in court. From the Mackinac Center for Public Policy: The Granholm-AFSCME Partnership

The Granholm-AFSCME Partnership from Mackinac Center on Vimeo.

If only Granholm would have put this much effort into improving the economic climate in Michigan. In related news on the positive side, a federal lawsuit against this farce is progressing: Lawsuit Over Forced Unionization Gets Green Light. Unfortunately, at eth federal level we are under the tyranny of the black robe, with more judicial activists than at the state level. So basically a crapshoot as to whether or not they read the US Constitution.