Posted on 06/11/2008 11:43:47 AM PDT by SmithL
New York (AP) -- A judge has ordered New York's governor, Senate and Assembly to raise the pay of the state's judges within the next 90 days.
State Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner in Manhattan said Wednesday that the defendants unconstitutionally abused their power by depriving judges of a pay hike for almost 10 years. He said state legislators illegally linked a judicial salary increase to one for themselves.
Lehner, who acknowledged he would be affected by his own decision, ordered the state to raise judicial pay to reflect cost of living increases since 1998.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Now all he has to do is order the Governor to sign the bill.
Then we will have all three branches of government wrapped up in one black collar criminal.
Perhaps we should find all the people holding guns to these judges heads, forcing them to remain on the bench.
On a more serious note (Maybe) this is a legislative issue.
It may well be that higher salaries would attract and keep better judges, but that is exactly the kind of public policy issue that legislatures exist to decide.
Why do we need LAWYERS as judges. Seems to be a built-in bias right there. I have enough sense to make a good judge... and TOO MUCH good sense to become a lawyer.
its the new aristocracy in the united states, not nobility like in times of old, but lawyers, doctors and other professionals who have more rights given to them by government than the rest of ‘the masses’, we the people. imo
It’s hard to find fault with your post... the aristocracy of “pull”... lawyers got it and we don’t. I am so thinking how needful it’s getting to be to hit the Constitutional reset button... And NOW, before my sons and granddaughters have it to do.
You said all you needed to say in your statement. Maybe if you don’t want to be so obvious you’ll need to work on less obvious ways to say things.
Never in my life in the United States have I heard of a suit by state judges against a state legislature asking for increased pay. It’s preposterous that any judge who would be enriched by a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs should be hearing and ruling on the case. There’s no more flagrant example of judicial conflict of interest than this!
If mama ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy.
Personally, I couldn't care less what you think of me. I know I'm serving my country with dignity and honor. So you know what? Go to hell.
Do you not agree that the judge usurped legislative powers and has a conflict of interest?
For Almondjoy, I too have been told by the esteemed counsel j24 to "go to hell". You see, j24 thinks "The Law" is best understood and delivered by our betters, ie like him. As far as he is concerned, "The Law" is above the comprehension of the proletariat.
For Enchante, Governor Paterson agrees with you.
I know.. lawyers tend to think they are better than everyone else because you know.. if it weren’t for lawyers then we wouldn’t have law... or something like that.
It would be interesting to see on what basis the judge said not giving a raise for 10 years was unconstitutional. Sir Judge? Does that extend to all jobs? Salaries below a certain amount are unconstitutional? Maybe we should just set everyone’s salary to 1 million. It would be interesting if Congress came back and said here is your raise we’ll give you 1 more dollar.
Perhaps what you meant to say is too much morality to become a lawyer.
Yes, that would also fit in there.
Not quite. Would you listen to medical diagnoses by someone with no medical training? How about structural analysis by non-engineers? Stock advice by someone who doesn't know business? Why is the law so different, that the uneducated's opinions trump that of those who have studied it in depth? All too often, people knee-jerk reactions against a legal conclusion without examining the opinion that formed the basis behind it.
Ok genius.. cite the NY consitution that allows for a judge to tell the state who and what to pay people?
It's a tenuous argument, but not an unprecedented one (Goodheart v. Case, 521 Pa. 316 (1989), aff'd 523 Pa. 188 (1989).)
It is poor argumentation to criticize a position before you have researched the opposing side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.