Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Furlough = NO-GO ... UPDATED x 2
New York Daily News ^ | 5/12/10 | Ken Lovett

Posted on 05/12/2010 4:42:16 PM PDT by SmithL

A federal judge has blocked Gov. Paterson’s push for 100,000 state worker furloughs.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn issued the temporary restraining order late this afternoon. (Read it here.)

The furloughs, which would be the first in state history, were to go into effect on Monday, but now will have to wait. Kahn scheduled a hearing on the matter for May 26.

The temporary restraining order also prohibits Paterson from submitting any more emergency extenders that withhold the 4% to &% pay raises for union employees.

Paterson included the furloughs in an emergency spending bill to keep government running. Angry lawmakers were forced to either pass the bill, which they reluctantly did, or shut down government.

The unions and many lawmakers argued the furloughs were illegal because they were not collectively bargained.

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; furlough; unionthugs; yourtaxdollarsatwork

1 posted on 05/12/2010 4:42:16 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Kahn, Lawrence E.
Born 1937 in Troy, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 18, 1996, to a seat vacated by Neal P. McCurn; Confirmed by the Senate on July 16, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996. Assumed senior status on August 1, 2007.

Education:
Oxford University
Union College, A.B., 1959
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1962

Professional Career:
Private practice, Albany, New York, 1963-1973
Assistant corporation counsel, City of Albany, New York, 1963-1968
Surrogate judge, Albany County Surrogate's Court, New York, 1973-1979
Justice, New York State Supreme Court, 1980-1996

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

2 posted on 05/12/2010 4:43:10 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So... I guess the Judge will be paying the bill out of his own pocket, right? [/s]


3 posted on 05/12/2010 4:45:04 PM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Is it necessary to add, “unelected” judge?


4 posted on 05/12/2010 4:46:41 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It is kinda the governments fault for agreeing to these contracts.

Without furloughs, I guess NY will just have to fire some of these workers. I seriously doubt New Yorkers will notice.


5 posted on 05/12/2010 4:48:00 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

Need to cut the Judges stipends, to make the budget balanced. He is a law unto himself.


6 posted on 05/12/2010 4:48:26 PM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Marxists will rule with an iron fist.


7 posted on 05/12/2010 4:49:09 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

>> Without furloughs, I guess NY will just have to fire some of these workers.

Can they do that without a permission slip from some damn federal judge?


8 posted on 05/12/2010 4:51:22 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
It seems the court is hanging it's hat on the following alleged violation of the Constitution:

“Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

However, it seems a stretch. New York isn't impairing the obligation of contracts in a law, it is involved in the specific contracts. It doesn't seem to be any of the Federal Government's business. This is one of the contractees involved with another contractee and should be in state court.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this is just my thoughts on the appearance of it. The order is at the link. Any real lawyers out there want to explain it? It would be appreciated about how the Feds have jurisdiction.

9 posted on 05/12/2010 4:52:11 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I was actually looking forward to having every Friday off this summer.


10 posted on 05/12/2010 4:52:14 PM PDT by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

A Clinton nominee. Figures.


11 posted on 05/12/2010 4:54:07 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Collectivism, meet Reality.

You two have a nice visit with each other.


12 posted on 05/12/2010 4:54:43 PM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Greece.


13 posted on 05/12/2010 4:59:44 PM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Can they do that without a permission slip from some damn federal judge?

Well, I guess the courts can start forcing states to pay public workers and/or demand states raise taxes so they will have the money to do it. The state can eventually just refuse if the public gets angry enough. Then we will have a fun fight pitting states versus the Federal courts.

I have almost no confidence in the current crop of American voters, so perhaps insanely stupid lefty decisions like that might wake people up?

Hate to say it, but at this point I almost feel we need outrageous decisions sooner rather than later. The long term voting demographics don't seem terribly favorable - so if things are going to really change it will have to happen soon. I think we may be in a race against time here.

14 posted on 05/12/2010 5:20:32 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The proper response is “Judge Kahn has made his ruling. Now lets see him enforce it.” Then go ahead with the furloughs.
15 posted on 05/12/2010 5:24:21 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The judge also gave the state of New York permission to start printing money to pay its bills. One day a governor will tell the judge, thank you for sharing and then go ahead and, in this case, implement the furloughs.

A stand off between the courts and the legislature is needed. Let the Supreme Court rule on this judicial activism.

16 posted on 05/12/2010 5:34:29 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
It is kinda the governments fault for agreeing to these contracts.

I agree with you. Others on here may blast you. They will say a contract should not be honored - that would be the less conservative among the FR community saying that.

17 posted on 05/12/2010 5:36:26 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mimaw
Greece

Add Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the UK and California.

18 posted on 05/12/2010 5:38:59 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Welcome to Greece.


19 posted on 05/12/2010 5:47:09 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
unions destroy everything they come in contact with... including states and governments
20 posted on 05/12/2010 5:51:59 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So how does this work with a “Separate but equal” doctrine? I don’t recall any constitutional provisions that allow the judicial branch to direct the executive branch to do anything. All they can do is rule that something is illegal/unconstitutional....they can not dictate a remedy.


21 posted on 05/13/2010 5:59:09 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"The unions and many lawmakers argued the furloughs were illegal because they were not collectively bargained."

As 0bammy has effectively said to auto co bond holders, etc., etc.:"Contracts? I don't pay no attention to no stinkin' contracts".

22 posted on 05/13/2010 7:36:00 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lurk

Social Justice for Taxpayers or for SEIU gov’t workers?


23 posted on 05/13/2010 7:41:12 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson