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

Skip to comments.

(Activist) Judge: Pension Rules Unlawful
The Lakeland Ledger (A NYT Newspaper) ^

Posted on 03/07/2012 6:04:10 AM PST by Road Warrior 04

...Fulford also ruled the mandatory pension payments represented an "unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation" and a violation of collective bargaining rights of the public workers....


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: florida; judicialactivism; pensions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
Activist judges thwarting the will of the people...again!
1 posted on 03/07/2012 6:04:13 AM PST by Road Warrior 04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

So many “unintended consequences”, I have no idea where to begin.


2 posted on 03/07/2012 6:07:46 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

NYT sold off this place off a few months ago.


3 posted on 03/07/2012 6:08:00 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
"First, kill all the lawyers."

William Shakespeare
4 posted on 03/07/2012 6:08:51 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

“Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford, in a decision that could bring fiscal disarray to government budgets, said the state and local governments must pay back the money that the 560,000 workers have contributed since last summer, with interest.

The ruling — if upheld on appeal — could cost the state and county governments nearly $1.5 billion this year, including $860 million for the state and $600 million for the counties. It would have similar financial consequences for the governments in the coming budget year.”

Unbelievable! These liberal judges are out of control! Tyrants in black robes!


5 posted on 03/07/2012 6:09:14 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Isn't taking taxes for paying for pensions also "unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation"?

6 posted on 03/07/2012 6:10:58 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

[In her decision, Fulford said making public workers contribute a portion of their salaries to their retirement was an “unconstitutional impairment” of their original employment terms with the state.”

Citing a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision, Fulford said lawmakers could change benefits for “future state service.” ]

I guess the governments should just fire them all and replace them!


7 posted on 03/07/2012 6:13:02 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

??

Making public workers contribute to their own pension funds is now unlawful?? Even though it is a law??


8 posted on 03/07/2012 6:15:50 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Just performing his Cloward-Piven obligation to overwhelm the system.


9 posted on 03/07/2012 6:20:35 AM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to behead anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope."

George Lucas

10 posted on 03/07/2012 6:27:20 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

I just read some of the comments at the newspaper site. I am so glad to be out of that state now. Mind you it does have some very good points. But the Gimme-Gimme’s are going to take it over like they did California.

Then we can start making jokes about the (fill in the blank), roll downhill and end up in Florida.


11 posted on 03/07/2012 6:27:41 AM PST by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Fulford's ruling means public workers who were hired before July 1, 2011, will be entitled to be reimbursed for their 3 percent contributions. Workers hired after that date will continue to have to contribute 3 percent of their pay because they were hired after the law took effect.

Solution: Fire all public employees who were hired before July 1, 2011. Problem solved.

12 posted on 03/07/2012 6:27:59 AM PST by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

“Citing a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision, Fulford said lawmakers could change benefits for “future state service.” ]

I guess the governments should just fire them all and replace them!

IMHO, those in a contract have to perform the duties in the contract. In the case of the teachers, since their students don’t pass standard tests, cancel their pensions, fire them, and hire new ones.

When they whine about losing their home, tell them to complain to the trolls living under the bridges - where they will be.

After all, who would hire an ex-trough feeder, anyway?


13 posted on 03/07/2012 6:32:14 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

a contract is a contract, and yes, we may not like it, but this is the deal they were hired under... the judge was right to uphold the decisions of government contracts.

the solution is to fire the one’s who made the deal instead of giving them higher salaries.

maryland is thinking about sticking the ever increasing teacher retirement bennies onto the counties... this is unlawful because the state negotiated a benefit that was unsustainable.

we shall see.

teeman


14 posted on 03/07/2012 6:33:36 AM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

I kind of like this decision. The libs of the state made a contract with people to buy votes. Now they have to pay for it. Make them live with the mess they created. Drive everyone out of the state—this will help stats that haven’t made obscene contracts with labor unions to thrive.


15 posted on 03/07/2012 6:47:39 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Judges won't let them change the contracts retrospectively. Only Obama is allowed to do that. And as we understand and value contracts we should be very cautious about going down that road. But Democrats say they can tax anything they want, as selectively as they want and as much as they want. So just slap a 'windfall pensions tax' on those outrageous government union pensions, as much as is needed to solve the budget hole.

It then should become not a legal battle, but a PR one. The left couldn't argue that we can't do that without everyone seeing their hypocrisy. They could merely argue that we shouldn't do that. Then we get to 1) play the class envy card and say we're taxing the rich. (2) Grab the moral high ground and point out that the states got into their deep debts precisely by granting government unions fat pay increases out of then current revenues instead of funding their fat pension and other future benefit promises, actions that would put private businesses in jail. They had to know the process couldn't be sustained; it was just a matter of how much they could loot, for how long, before getting caught. If they don't like my "windfall pension tax" name they could instead call it a "corrupt bargaining tax" as it amounts to the same thing. If a private business tried to scam a state this badly they wouldn't just be stopping future payments they'd be looking to recover past payments, with interest and penalties added.

16 posted on 03/07/2012 6:48:52 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
More like a judge upholding the validity of a contract.

Here's the problem ~ there's a contract and that changes everything. The judge is telling the state it can change the terms by following due process of law and paying just compensation for the taking.

If these folks were just "at will" employees, you'd have a different sort of ruling ~ just like the courts have always upheld the right of Congress to change the terms of federal employment and there's NOTHING the employees can do about it.

Congress knows to NOT sign a contract.

The state would be well advised to change the terms of employment in the future and NOT sign any more contracts.

17 posted on 03/07/2012 6:55:32 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Most of our problems would be solved if all these lib/pro-regressive/commie/radicals would commit mass suicide. Instead they’re narcisistic/controll freakish/know better than everyone else tendency compells them take all their bitterness out on everyone else.


18 posted on 03/07/2012 6:56:42 AM PST by Leep (Dueling tag lines=don't worry,you'll be a vegetable guy soon<>It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leep

they’re=their


19 posted on 03/07/2012 6:57:43 AM PST by Leep (Dueling tag lines=don't worry,you'll be a vegetable guy soon<>It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
Uh, you mixed federal with state legal standards. The Congress never grants anyone the right to a lifetime contract on anything.

States, though, slip through the cracks of sound judgment and end up in the hands of the janitorial union.

The solution here is simple ~ never ever promote anyone covered by the contract. Two ways to do that ~ stipulate that all openings are now no longer covered by the contract. All openings will be filled with open bids from the general public under the stipulation that XYZ will be paid for retirement, etc.

That's kinda' what the judge told them they can do.

The labor union contracts are with PEOPLE, not VACANCIES.

20 posted on 03/07/2012 7:00:09 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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