Did one of the "liberal" justices on the Supreme Court side with union busters in case that could bust unions nationwide?

Andy Kroll, a reporter for Mother Jones, has signaled that it's likely, but not certain, that the U.S. Supreme Court may rule to either effectively enact a nationwide right-to-work-for-less law by judicial fiat or, even worse, effectively bust every single public-sector union in the entire country by judicial fiat in the Harris v. Quinn case that will likely be decided Monday.

However, it may not be the usual five conservative justices who may make up an anti-union majority on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, usually one of the most conservative justices on the court, sided with the unions during the oral arguments of the Harris case (however, that doesn't guarantee that Scalia will side with the unions when the ruling is issued, although it's certainly a possibility). Additionally, in 1991, Scalia himself wrote that "where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost" in the Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn. case.

If the Supreme Court, which has five conservative justices and four liberal justices, has only four conservative justices siding against the unions, that would mean that the union busters would need at least one of the liberal justices to side against the unions in order for the court to rule against the unions. You're probably asking yourself this question: Which one of the four "liberals" on our nation's highest court would be the one to side with the conservatives and bust the unions in this country? My guess that it would be either Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, or Stephen Breyer, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg is widely considered to be the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court bench, and it would be highly unlikely that she'd rule against the unions in a landmark case that would have massive ramifications on American society.

Should one or more of the four "liberal" justices of the Supreme Court rule against the unions in the Harris case, that would be perhaps the single most traitorous act in modern American history. It's atrocious enough when conservatives want to take away rights from working Americans, but, in my opinion, it's even worse when liberals do so, since liberals are expected to stand up for workers' rights, not take them away. A ruling against the unions would give wealthy people and corporations even more influence and control over our country's politics, worsen income inequality, and cost this country thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

Why I'm writing a book criticizing corporate welfare

Republicans and corporate Democrats have long supported corporate welfare, in which taxpayer money goes toward tax credits, tax cuts, handouts, and other forms of payouts to specific businesses or specific types of businesses, and those payouts have little or no benefit to the general public.

The corporate welfare system in this country is an inefficient, unsustainable system of government encouraging growth in the private-sector economy, and that's why I'm writing a book, which will be titled Corporate Welfare Queens, criticizing the corporate welfare system in this country and promoting my ideas for responsible economic development.

My book is currently slated for release sometime in the early part of next year, and it will likely be available in an online-only format, as I don't know of a single traditional book publisher that would be interested in anything I write.