Solicitor General Paul Clement resigned yesterday after seven years with the Bush Administration. As reported by Tony Mauro on the Legal Times blog, Right to Work advocates are thrilled to see him go:
"Paul Clement did not leave soon enough," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in a statement. "He kicked the cause of employee freedom from compulsory unionism in the teeth once again before heading out the door."
Clement's latest offense against the right-to-work movement was a brief he filed with the Supreme Court May 12 in Locke v. Karass, which the Court will consider next term. The foundation is supporting 20 Maine state employees who object to their compulsory agency fees being used to fund nationwide union litigation far removed from the workers' local bargaining concerns. Clement's brief says it is constitutional for fees to be used in at least some kinds of pooling arrangements with other unions for litigation, though it suggests limits on the use. His brief can be found here.
The standard Clement uses is not good enough, says Gleason, who asks on his blog "Is Bush's Top Lawyer Taking Orders from Big Labor?" He says Clement has been soft on unions in past right-to-work cases as well.
No word yet on the reason for Clement's departure. But it was none too soon for rank-and-file workers under Big Labor's thumb. Clement joins the ranks of other ex-Bush administration officials -- such as DOL's former General Counsel Andrew Siff -- who used their positions to deliver goodies to the union bosses.
Comments
I whole-heartedly agree with
I whole-heartedly agree with Bismarck.. .
Sorry for the double post, but I posted this comment under the "Big Labor" blog post before I saw this:
Sir, could you please explain to me why, when the Repulicans had control of Congress, that a national right to work law was not put into legislation?
The Republicans most certainly should have known that it is forced unionism, and the dollars that go with it, that has been the foundation of any Democrat success--and Republican defeat.
Certainly, it could have been couched in terms of "Worker Choice" and/or "Anti-Institutional Control of Workers".
One would think that the Republicans would have done this while the getting was good--if not on purely political grounds.
In my opinion, since I am not a politico, it is my position that forced unionism is Un-American, if not, certainly down right Un-Constitutional.
Ruby
Unconstitutional, visit Oath Keepers
If you want to work to fix America, heres how you can help.
www.OATHKEEPERS.org and www.sheriffmack.com
Watch the video's on both sites, and spread the word !
In Freedom,
That Rascal John Boehner
In my opinion, the most potent obstacle to getting a vote on the National Right to Work Act was Congressman John Boehner. He blocked it for all of the years that he chaired of the Education and Labor Committee. Within the committee itself, there were enough votes to get it to the floor, but Boehner would not allow a vote in the committee. So, for the six years that there was a Republican majority in both houses of congress and we had a president who would have signed a Right to Work bill, John Boehner stood in the way. You would have to ask him for his reasons.
Bismarck
Missed Opportunity
President Bush and the Republicans, while they had a majority in congress, squandered a great opportunity to advance the cause of freedom for American workers. When will they learn?
Bismarck