Skip to comments.Judge Rules That Detroit Bankruptcy Filing Is Unconstitutional
Posted on 07/19/2013 2:23:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Michigan judge ruled today that Detroit filing for chapter 9 bankruptcy on Thursday was unconstitutional. Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina said the filing must be withdrawn and that, according to the Detroit Free Press, the governor and city emergency manager “must take no further actions that threaten to diminish the pension benefits of City of Detroit retirees.”
The reduction in those particular benefits is at issue here, due to a portion of the Michigan Constitution that reads [PDF]:
“The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby.”
The judge interpreted this passage to declare the bankruptcy filing unconstitutional, though this piece in the Detroit News argues that it may not be that clear-cut.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Bill Schuette is appealing the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals and requesting the orders stayed for the time being.
I know hes watching this, she said, predicting the president ultimately will have to do something to make sure existing city workers pension agreements are honored.
Impeach her. She's essentially calling for a dictatorship. Obama simply executes the laws written by Congress. A judge should at the very least understand the operations of the US Constitution.
It’s interesting how a judge will read “shall not be diminished or impaired” one way here but “shall not be infringed” a completely different way somewhere else.
Under normal circumstances, what you have accrued means what you have accrued to date. Some judge a long time ago in CA deemed that to mean whatever your contract said you WILL accrue and that is what the unions there base their claims on.
They all need to go to a defined contribution plan, but the unions would rather bankrupt the country first.
No. The hack judge expects U.S. taxpayers to bailout bankrupt cities.
Never mind the fact that decades and decades of liberal policies and
Union Thugs have reduced this once active city to a current cesspool
city. She wants U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill.
In many cases bankrputcy cheats a lot of people out of money.
How often do we hear of state judges stopping bankruptcies because it’s “cheating”? They occur all the time. They are broke, they can’t pay, they can’t meet obligations, that’s why they are bankrupt.
Detroit is broke. It will continue to be broke. It will become even more broke than it is now.
One can find a “Goofy Judge” to block anything.
Judges cant change a bankrupt city into a solvent one with a ruling, through legal alchemy.
Nicely said. Legislative monitization. lol
” Impeach her. She’s essentially calling for a dictatorship.”
No thanks, we already have one.
I agree. The “dishonor Obama” comment, if true, is ridiculous beyond belief and indicative of a stupid judge. Nevertheless, the provision in the State Constitution does present an interesting legal issue. It seems to me a State should have the right to protect pensions like this, regardless of the sanity of the provision. It’s a State and its political subdivisions and they should have the right to determine such matters, but I do think it will be overturned via Federal pre emption.
I suspect her ruling -- which she knows to be a loser on appeal -- was a sop to her constituency.
” No. The hack judge expects U.S. taxpayers to bailout bankrupt cities.”
The scary part is that this is really quite minor compared to the debt many cities have on top of the debt the nation has.
And what about taxpayers rights? The unions get the officials elected who in turn approve these benefits that cannot ever be paid under the assumption that the taxpayers will pay or else.
Time for taxpayer revolt!
And I thought it was just racists.
Bimbos come in back robes too.
Remember the “supreme” court.
The day is soon when we tell these undereducated minions to shove it.
So the State has a right to enslave the few tax paying citizens left to pay for the bloated pensions of public employees because the political officials that agreed to the pensions were bought and paid for by the public employee unions?
Words mean things. Does anyone know what part of the Constitution she cited in order to rule the bankruptcy “un-Constitutional?”
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.