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....
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.
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
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.
See my tagline.
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.
You’ve been here since 2004, and you don’t know how to excerpt?
The NYT was culling some of its newpapers, The Ledger being one of them, but I don't think it's happened yet.
Brilliant point, especially considering that a pension fund which pays out isn't even a 'taking' anyway.
Were you able to read it?
A lot of chutzpa considering April 15 is just five short weeks away. For 51% of us, that is.
Only the little guys look forward to April 15.
Sorry. This evil force is too big for even the Jedi to overcome. You're on your own. ;-)
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%.
Every liberal knows there is good stealing and bad stealing.
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?
ANother Judge who thinks he has the legislative purse-strings of congress and free tax money.
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.
Love to see that happen.
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!
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.