Skip to comments.BREAKING: Furlough = NO-GO ... UPDATED x 2 »
Posted on 05/12/2010 4:42:16 PM PDT by SmithL
A federal judge has blocked Gov. Patersons 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 ...
So... I guess the Judge will be paying the bill out of his own pocket, right? [/s]
Is it necessary to add, “unelected” judge?
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.
Need to cut the Judges stipends, to make the budget balanced. He is a law unto himself.
The Marxists will rule with an iron fist.
>> 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?
“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.
I was actually looking forward to having every Friday off this summer.
A Clinton nominee. Figures.
Collectivism, meet Reality.
You two have a nice visit with each other.
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.
A stand off between the courts and the legislature is needed. Let the Supreme Court rule on this judicial activism.
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.
Add Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the UK and California.
Welcome to Greece.
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.