The DC Circuit's opinion striking down the notice-posting rule remains one of, I think, the five most idiotic judicial opinions I have ever read. It literally contradicts itself. The first two sections are all about how post-1947 First Amendment compelled speech cases (none of which apply to workplace notices) somehow magically went back in time and convinced Congress to secretly put an atextual compelled-speech doctrine into the penumbras and emanations of NLRA section 8(c) (and that doctrine does apply to workplace notices because Reasons, unless the notices are anti-union, again because Reasons). The third section is all about how post-1947 equitable tolling cases couldn't possibly magically go back in time and convince Congress to allow for equitable tolling in NLRA section 10(b).
It's just a stunning display of judicial arrogance and incoherent reasoning.
The DC Circuit's opinion striking down the notice-posting rule remains one of, I think, the five most idiotic judicial opinions I have ever read. It literally contradicts itself. The first two sections are all about how post-1947 First Amendment compelled speech cases (none of which apply to workplace notices) somehow magically went back in time and convinced Congress to secretly put an atextual compelled-speech doctrine into the penumbras and emanations of NLRA section 8(c) (and that doctrine does apply to workplace notices because Reasons, unless the notices are anti-union, again because Reasons). The third section is all about how post-1947 equitable tolling cases couldn't possibly magically go back in time and convince Congress to allow for equitable tolling in NLRA section 10(b).
It's just a stunning display of judicial arrogance and incoherent reasoning.