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 Bushbacker1

...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
Activist judges thwarting the will of the people...again!
1 posted on 03/07/2012 6:04:13 AM PST by Bushbacker1
[ 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]

To: Leep

Newt has aggressively addressed the subject of judicial activism. He’s the only candidate who has done so. I really wish he gets the opportunity to put his words into actions.


21 posted on 03/07/2012 7:03:46 AM PST by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Why do we pay so much to keep legislatures running in 50 states (maybe 57) and Washington DC when so many judges are willing to do the work of the legislatures in addition to doing their own jobs?

/s


22 posted on 03/07/2012 7:03:58 AM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

I understand the concept of an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ultimate consequence of this decision is bankruptcy. We are going to see more and more cities using bankruptcy because they are insolvent. The unions will not like the results.


23 posted on 03/07/2012 7:04:26 AM PST by doug from upland (Just in case, it has been reserved: www.TheBitchIsBack2012.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

See my tagline.


24 posted on 03/07/2012 7:05:57 AM PST by Arm_Bears (Journalists first; then lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Exactly! That’s why I like this decision. Let’s get the politician’s out of it. And let the bankruptcy courts handle it. It will be a mess, but it will be obvious which states are screwed up and why. Plus it’s probably the best chance to destroy the public sector unions.


25 posted on 03/07/2012 7:09:58 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 23 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

You’ve been here since 2004, and you don’t know how to excerpt?


26 posted on 03/07/2012 7:17:15 AM PST by SmithL (If you reward certain behavior, don't be surprised when you see more of that behavior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
NYT sold off this place off a few months ago.

The NYT was culling some of its newpapers, The Ledger being one of them, but I don't think it's happened yet.

27 posted on 03/07/2012 7:29:56 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1
Isn't taking taxes for paying for pensions also "unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation"?

Brilliant point, especially considering that a pension fund which pays out isn't even a 'taking' anyway.

28 posted on 03/07/2012 7:30:31 AM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Were you able to read it?


29 posted on 03/07/2012 7:30:40 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
"unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation"

A lot of chutzpa considering April 15 is just five short weeks away. For 51% of us, that is.

30 posted on 03/07/2012 7:52:08 AM PST by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao
You don't know that for a fact ~ our big dogs paying the most taxes were fully paid by January 15 anyway.

Only the little guys look forward to April 15.

31 posted on 03/07/2012 7:54:51 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope."

Sorry. This evil force is too big for even the Jedi to overcome. You're on your own. ;-)

32 posted on 03/07/2012 8:10:46 AM PST by OB1kNOb (The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty. - Prov 22:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

Is the state trying to rewrite a formal contract, or is this a case of plaintiffs arguing that the terms and conditions of employment under which they were originally hired should be deemed an implicit contract, binding in perpetuity? (Binding in one direction only, of course; I’m confident that employees hired 20 years ago will not object to any sweeteners that have been added since.)

The state should not monkey with existing pension accruals, but requiring an employee contribution going forward is perfectly ok, unless there is an explicit contract (e.g. union contracts) that say the state will pay 100%.


33 posted on 03/07/2012 8:29:06 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

Every liberal knows there is good stealing and bad stealing.


34 posted on 03/07/2012 8:39:22 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Is it possible to pass a Constitutional Amendment barring unionization of public employees? We have now seen by examples here and in Europe how the linkage between public employee unions and the politicians they support produces financially disastrous inbreeding: the unions support the politicians, the politicians vote for more goodies for the unions.

If our government is to be “for the people” this has got to stop. Obviously, legislation is not enough because of the tyrants in black robes. It is no accident that they got to don those black robes because of their red diapers with the union label. It is part of the same protection racket, dressed up with noble workers’ rhetoric.

We need to go over the heads of the activist judiciary and tie their hands with the binds of a Constitutional Amendment: “Whereas this Constitution requires government for the people; and Whereas collective bargaining rights for public employees is inimical to self-rule and the public fisc, all collective bargaining rights are hereby abolished and shall be prohibited in any form.”

A man can dream, can’t he?


35 posted on 03/07/2012 8:41:57 AM PST by JewishRighter (Anybody but Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Anyone ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory?

Ok, so now the state has to stop deducting money from most state's employees paychecks and pay back the money they already took out.

Republican have super-majorities in both the House and Senate. Where do you thing they are going to get the money to make up for this huge whole in the state budget?

By raising taxes, or by laying off thousands of state workers?
36 posted on 03/07/2012 9:00:37 AM PST by Kevin C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

ANother Judge who thinks he has the legislative purse-strings of congress and free tax money.


37 posted on 03/07/2012 9:26:18 AM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

I pay taxes and nobody has thought to ask me if i want some government worker to be paid a pension that i don’t have.


38 posted on 03/07/2012 10:41:02 AM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Love to see that happen.


39 posted on 03/07/2012 11:07:07 AM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
"unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation" and a violation of collective bargaining rights of the public workers....

The solution is obvious for hundreds of communities slowly going bankrupt trying to satisfy gold-plated pensions that none could actually deliver :

Eliminate Public employee pensions altogether.
After all, all private enterprise pensions are 100% voluntary on the employers' part.

Problem solved.

Unless this moron judge is prepared to reason that public employee pensions are a constitutional private property right---- but private pensions are not.

Rotsa Ruck!

40 posted on 03/07/2012 1:11:18 PM PST by Publius6961 (“It’s easy to make phony promises you can’t keep.” - Obama, Feb23, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
"This is a victory for the rule of law," Meyer said. "The court said today that a promise is a promise. A contract is a contract. And even the governor and the Legislature have to live up to the covenants which they enter into."

Hey - a contract is a contract. If the state entered into an open-ended agreement with its long-time workers that stated they would not have to contribute, then the state has to live with it.

Workers hired afterwards would be subject to the new rules.

IF the term of the contract for the long-time workers expires - THEN new contract terms can be negotiated.

One party cannot enter into a contract with another party and then arbitraily, capriciously, and unilaterally change the terms of the contract just because they have the power to enact legislation.

41 posted on 03/08/2012 3:03:14 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
One party cannot enter into a contract with another party and then arbitraily, capriciously, and unilaterally change the terms of the contract just because they have the power to enact legislation.

I understand! GM & Chrysler...

42 posted on 03/08/2012 3:56:51 PM PST by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
GM & Chrysler

Of course, bankruptcies toss contracts out the window and can then be renegotiated ...

43 posted on 03/08/2012 7:42:35 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
It is long past time for radical change. Public schools are a relic of a bygone era. We have technology now that can allow kids to learn a lot more, and at a pace that suits them. Same with most government services and agencies. So many things are redundant or obsolete. Our counties and states pay tens and hundreds of millions for statistics that can be compiled with greater accuracy via Facebook or Google.

Our leaders lack vision and certainly don't care for the constituents.

"...Politicians...blame the voters for allegedly wanting more government than they are willing to pay for. The effort of politicians to pin the blame on voters diverts attention from the real entitlement mentality that threatens to bankrupt the nation: A political class that feels entitled to rule over the rest of us." From The Real 'Entitlement Mentality' That Is Bankrupting America

44 posted on 03/10/2012 10:23:25 PM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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