Incumbent Governor Bruce Rauner crowed about his victory Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme ruled against public-sector unions in the Janus v. AFSCME decision. In a 5-4 decision, the court determined that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions. The case was filed by the Rauner-funded Liberty Justice Center. Rauner was a plaintiff in the case until a lower court determined he lacked standing.

You won’t hear Rauner thanking President Trump for appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch, who case the deciding vote in this case, though.

With Rauner’s pitiful record on conservative issues, almost being a plaintiff in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case against public sector unions may seem like a coup. The weak-kneed Governor signed Democrat legislation last year making taxpayer-funded abortion on demand the law of the land. He also caved on turning Illinois into a sanctuary state, a refuge for illegal immigrants flouting the law, not paying any taxes, and bilking American citizens, who do pay their taxes.

A large donor to the Democrat National Committee and Planned Parenthood, Rauner threw conservatives under the bus on two key GOP platform issues. With the victory on Janus, Rauner will once again claim the conservative mantel even though he is the farthest thing from being a conservative or a Republican.

Rauner stood up against union fees but not against abortion or illegal immigration. Conservative voters should be furious.

From Rauner’s campaign today…

“You look at how we’re going to transform politics in Illinois, across America, when we win the federal lawsuit against AFSCME that I started,’ Rauner said. ‘That’s transformative. You think that Republicans across Illinois, across America, aren’t excited about how that will change the balance of power between taxpayers and special interest groups inside government?’”

Is it really Rauner’s victory or is President Trump’s victory?

Once again, Rauner is claiming credit for a victory that is the result of a Trump White House. Rauner never supported Donald Trump – before he was elected and even after. During the campaign, Rauner made anti-Trump statements to the media. He was Team Hillary.  He wasn’t on the Republican team. He didn’t want Trump to win – he wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

In March 2016, Rauner promised to back the eventual Republican nominee for President, regardless of the victor. After the Illinois primary, Rauner changed his mind and refused to formally endorse Trump. He also declined to lead the Illinois delegation at the GOP convention in Cleveland. To make matters worse, he didn’t even bother to attend the National GOP Convention at all – the political equivalent of thumbing his nose at Trump.

Trump made a campaign stop in Chicago in July 2016 and Governor Rauner snubbed him again.

He didn’t endorse Trump for President. At the 2016 Columbus Day Parade in Chicago, he said he didn’t endorse Trump for President and lashed out at Trump for comments made on to Ryan Seacrest on the NBC released audio tape.

“The rhetoric, the language, the statements in that tape that’s recently come out — disgusting, appalling, outrageous, beyond any reasonable bounds of decency,” Rauner said. Rauner refused to offer any criticism of Hillary Clinton, her email scandal or her anti-religious bigotry.

After Trump’s victory, Rauner offered no congratulations. He skipped the President’s inauguration and boycotted Trump’s dinner with 46 U.S. governors at the White House in early 2017. Rauner has refused to mention Trump’s name in two years.

Would Judge Neil Gorsuch be on the U.S. Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had been elected? Not a chance. Was it Gorsuch who gave Rauner a majority in the Janus case? Yes.

Without Gorsuch, without Trump, there would be no victory in the Janus case and Rauner is the one claiming a victory?

Rauner should be in Washington begging Trump’s forgiveness on bended knee! He’s claiming credit for Trump’s Supreme Court victory instead.

Comments

comments

1 thought on “Rauner claims credit for Trump’s Supreme Court victory on Janus case”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *