Posted on 04/04/2011 3:22:50 PM PDT by Libloather
so now scrap it completely.
I think he said this because he knew that someday they may become Judges...
I see, so its up to all of the Citizens that are not in the Union to pay for the increase so the retirees can keep their insurance instead of their Union Brothers and Sisters.
In other words Solidarity means, "We band together to force Others to pay for our upkeep!"
Wow! If I had to only spend 3% of my wages on health care....!
Lots of folks are getting this state judge mixed up with the federal system. I think this guy was supposed to retire a year ago because of the age limit. He's also been described in the past as a judicial activist. Seems accurate, though IANAL and I don't know Michigan law.
Last leftist? Heck, this guy has been on the bench for more than four decades!
Depends on the judge. Michigan Constitution is probably the controlling authority for Michigan judges.
ARTICLE VI - Judicial BranchS: 18 Salaries; uniformity, changes during term.
Sec. 18. Salaries of justices of the supreme court, of the judges of the court of appeals, of the circuit judges within a circuit, and of the probate judges within a county or district, shall be uniform, and may be increased but shall not be decreased during a term of office except and only to the extent of a general salary reduction in all other branches of government.
Circuit judges, additional salary from county.
Each of the judges of the circuit court shall receive an annual salary as provided by law. In addition to the salary received from the state, each circuit judge may receive from any county in which he regularly holds court an additional salary as determined from time to time by the board of supervisors of the county. In any county where an additional salary is granted, it shall be paid at the same rate to all circuit judges regularly holding court therein.
The reason I looked it up, is because I recalled judges under the US Constitution are immune from reduction in compensation.
The remedy available to the legislature is impeachment and removal.
first thing these states should do, is stop the Judge’s paychecks.
We all pay into a non guaranteed benefit right now, and it’s more than 3% - I doubt highly that there will be Social Security by the time I’m old enough to receive it yet all young people are still required to pay into it now. How is this any different?
Impossible to know whether this decision is right or wrong without knowing what the Michigan state constitution says.
On my Social Security Statement it says benefits are not guaranteed, yet I am required to pay in. Since the good judge has informed me that is unconstitutional, I suspect I can stop paying in now. I certainly could put the extra money to good use.
Another body blow to a state that has been called a budgetary basket case.
Time for the ref to call the fight.
The problem with Social Security is not that we are paying for future benefits, we are actually paying for current benefits to people who may or may not have put into the system. The promised benefits will only occur if the US is still solvent by then. The USG can change the law and just say they don’t have the funds and cancel our Social Security at some future date, and NOT pay us back what we put in.
These people don’t have to like it any more than you would . . . .
That’s my point. It’s like social security. yThe eligibility can be legislated away. That’s why I asked if the state of MI (MI taxpayers) are currently paying into a fund for future health insurance for retirees or are they only paying for the current benefit being paid. If the latter, then I can understand the ruling, at least from the standpoint of logic (although I disagree with the benefit in the first place). But, also, if the latter, given the ruling, the benefit should be legislated away now so the retirees can plan and save to pay for their own insurance the way the rest of us have to do. Just do away with it, including for current retirees, who obviously didn’t pay into a fund for it. Phase it out by having them pay part of the premiums starting now and increase the percentage to 100% over, say, four years.
Let them pay for it themselves. Then we’ll see if they continue to support rats who are the handmaidens of the trial lawyers who profit heavily off malpractice insurance law, thus drastically increasing the cost of medicine. If they want their premiums to stop increasing, then they can stop voting for the people who drive the premiums up. It’s called tort reform.
“Ingham Circuit Judge James Giddings has ruled that requiring Michigan school employees to pay 3 percent of their wages for health-care coverage in retirement is unconstitutional since the health benefit isn’t guaranteed.”
OK, the easy solution is to just cut their benefit by 5% to make up for it.
Can I also use the same logic to make SSIP collections illegal? That isn’t a gauranteed benifit either!
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.