California Supreme Court Claims Unions Have Special Right to “Invade Private Property”

This is your Constitution. This is your Constitution on Liberalism.

What’s the difference between anti-abortion protesters and union protesters? One group has the right to invade private property and interfere with a business. The other does not.

The California Supreme Court upheld two state laws Thursday that permit labor unions to picket on privately owned property at store entrances.

The two state laws, which specifically prevent courts from interfering with peaceful labor pickets on private property, are justified “by the state’s interest in promoting collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.

Other demonstrators have no free speech rights to gather in front of a store’s privately owned entrance. But California “may single out labor-related speech for particular protection or regulation” as an exercise in the economic regulation of labor relations without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution, Kennard wrote.

The Constitution has become one of those punch lines to activist liberal judges. It can be added on to anything as a joke.

Give special rights to unions? Sure. It’s not against the Constitution. (Drum Roll)

The Sacramento store, more than five years ago, is located in the College Square retail development. In its complaint against the union, filed in April 2008, the company contended that the picketing in front of the 31-foot-wide store entrance amounted to trespass.

The union responded that the proposed injunction would violate Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 527.3, also known as the Moscone Act, and Labor Code Sec. 1138.1. The Moscone Act says that peaceful picketing and similar activities, in connection with a labor dispute, “shall be legal, and no court nor any judge nor judges thereof, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or preliminary or permanent injunction which, in specific or general terms, prohibits any person or persons, whether singly or in concert, from” engaging in such conduct.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ruled that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional because it constitutes “content-based discrimination.

In reversing, the Third District said both statutes are unconstitutional because they grant greater rights to those expressing pro-union views that those speaking on other subjects.

The panel also said that because the store is not a public forum, cases like Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, applying the state constitutional “liberty of speech” to some private property, do not apply.

Kennard’s response was, that giving greater rights to pro-union views was just fine.

The Court of Appeal, she said, erred in relying on U.S. Supreme Court rulings that invalidated an ordinance barring picketing near schools, and a statute barring picketing at a residence, both of which included exceptions for labor picketing.

Those cases are distinguishable, Kennard said, because the stricken enactments barred otherwise protected speech unconnected with a labor dispute.

“By contrast, invalidating here the Moscone Act and section 1138.1 would not remove any restrictions on speech or enhance any opportunities for peaceful picketing or protest anywhere, including the privately owned walkway in front of the customer entrance to the College Square Foods Co store,” the justice wrote. “This is because neither the Moscone Act nor section 1138.1 abridges speech.”

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Marvin Baxter, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu and Kathryn M. Werdegar joined Kennard’s opinion.

If you’re still following this comedy, the Supreme Multicultural Court of California ruled that giving special rights to unions to trespass and protest on private property is not unconstitutional because since no one has any right to trespass on private property, giving special rights to unions to do so does not prevent anyone else from also doing what they could not do anyway.

Similarly if a law granted union thugs a special right to take over television stations and broadcast their views, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it because no one else has the right to take over television stations.

In completely unrelated news, businesses are fleeing California for some inexplicable reason.

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    Well, what else are you going to do to a labor monopoly, but give it more rights than anyone else?

    Apparently, some are more equal than others.

    Doubleplus good.

  • Johnconrad

    One more Supreme Appointment by the author of Benghazigate and this sort of lunacy will be enshrined forever in the US Constitution.

    Wake me up when it's over. And, it's going to end soon.

    Sometimes society's simply get to stupid to survive.

  • Johnconrad

    Of course, I'm not "too" stupid to correct the spelling of "to" in the above.

    Yet, not sure how to edit here….:)

  • SickOfCalifornia

    Te residents of California get what they deserve. You vote representatives into office, you get crazy laws from the state legislators and crazy judges using them to push more crazy ideas.

    I will watch with sadness as you drown in your own created misery. I just hope that the CalTrash that keeps fleeing is somehow suppressed–the people of California should have to endure the mess they created and not be permitted to flee to more responsible states and bring those states down too.

    • Viet Vet

      Yeah, this is the real problem, people flee Commiefornia, but then they go to places like Colorado and continue to vote the same way they did in Commiefornia, thus ruining Colorado too.

      • Mary Sue

        yeah why are Californians so stupid? It only took 12 years of Epic Fail NDP (worse than regular Democrats) effing up British Columbia and dragging it down to "Have-not status" (meaning it was getting Federal Transfer Payments from the feds!) before people smartened up. Even hard core NDP voters knew the NDP had to go and the Liberals won handily and have been in power ever since.

        Because even Canadian leftists know, Politicians need changing often, like diapers, and for the same reason.

  • Thomas Wells

    More lefty lunacy from La La land. Soon California will sink into the ocean from the weight of all this madness.

  • Viet Vet

    This is, after all, Commiefornia!

  • kafir4life

    Avoid goods and services from union run companies whenever possible. It's not 100% at this point, but it gets easier as unions lose membership and power. Buying from union run companies is like giving a check to the likes of President Stinky (aka bo) and his cadre of liberal animals. Buying a car made by any of the UAW run companies, is like buying expensive garbage with the added bonus of paying for hookers for Democrat congressthings. It just doesn't make sense to waste money like that.

  • JacksonPearson

    Clearly, liberal activist judges suck. Private property is exactly that…P_R_I_V_A_T_E. California courts, and liberal judges are another reason why this state is past being flushed, and already in the sewer. This case has to be heard by the SCOTUS and be overturned.

    • Thomas Wells

      Or-upheld. Care to give odds?

      • JacksonPearson

        Nope. Betting on court opinions is suicidal.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah, before the Obummer has a chance to put more libs on it, at least…

  • FPF

    “may single out labor-related speech for particular protection or regulation” Didn't Justice Joyce L. Kennard know that abortion is a serious act against "labor"? Justice may be her title, but her act is totally injustice.

  • cynthia curran

    This is what happen when the white people were driven out of Orange County and San Diego they put a stop to the left but white people that vote Republican in both counties have drop about 200,000 a piece in 20 years.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “by the state’s interest in promoting collective bargaining to resolve labor disputes,”

    WRONG!!!! The state has an interest in upholding laws, not promoting labor against management. How psychotic. How…outrageous can you get for a judge to make such a statement? How is it in the interest of the state, unless you see the state as represented by only a single party, the Democratic (stealth communist) Party?

  • stevef

    I believe CA also has a new law legalizing violence if it's in the service of Union goals or activities.

  • Phillip

    If you don't like California, leave. The beauty of our United States is that if you want to live in a state that is still mired in the past, Mississippi or Arkansas will gladly have you – and you can live somewhere that shares your values. I'd love to see an exodus from my state. Clear up the freeways . . .

  • HighPressure

    Does anyone else note how Kennard’s name is most fitting on how she interprets the Constitution?

    Canard: An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

    One would think she was appointed by a South American thug dictator like tubby in Venezuela.