Supreme Court rebuffs Christie on public benefits reform
The court issued a ruling this morning that rejects part of a landmark law, signed by Christie last year, that reduces health and pension benefits for public workers in New Jersey. The justices ruled 4-2, with one abstention, that the law doesn't apply to them -- or any other judge in the state.
Supreme Court rebuffs Christie on public benefits reform
Matt Katz, Inquirer Staff Writer
Gov. Christie just got another reason to despise the state's Supreme Court.
The court issued a ruling this morning that rejects part of a landmark law, signed by Christie last year, that reduces health and pension benefits for public workers in New Jersey. The justices ruled 3-2, with one abstention, that the law doesn't apply to them -- or any other sitting judge in the state. The law can be applied to judges appointed after the effective date of the law, however.
In the majority opinion, the justices wrote: "No court of last resort -- including the United States Supreme Court -- has upheld the constitutionality of legislation of this kind."
The part of Christie's law that increases pension and health care contributions, the argument went, constitutes a salary cut.
Today, the Supreme Court agreed, upholding a lower court ruling. It noted that over seven years, justices and judges would be subject to a salary cut of at least $17,000 each.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Anne Patterson, a Christie appointee, said that nothing in the 1947 state constitution specified that "salary" includes pension and health benefits.
The decisions is sure to add fuel to what is already a fiery battle over the state's Supreme Court. Prior to Gov. Christie, every modern New Jersey governor has been able to get his or her nominees to the Supreme Court confirmed by the state Legislature. Christie has had two nominees rejected by Democratic legislators over the last few months as part of an ongoing stalemate that will continue to affect laws dealing with schools, affordable housing and taxes.
We are awaiting Christie reaction. It will be forthcoming, and fierce.
"Today, the Supreme Court agreed, upholding a lower court ruling. It noted that over seven years, justices and judges would be subject to a salary cut of at least $17,000 each."
SO WHAT - Its the principle (and legality) of the matter. The $'s are NOT a reason for a decision.— Taxes- On one hand all the PC people are posting non PC comments and name calling which is obviously helpful while middle class taxpayers get robbed to pay for lavish pension and healthcare costs for judges. And on the other hand, how is paying a share of the ever increasing cost of benefits that they expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab on a cut in salary? Over 7 years, the cost of benefits will exceed the $17k they would have paid. The taxpayer loses again. Who would allow a judge to decide his own pay? Can anyone say Conflict of interest??— UTR
- Nice to see that anti-Christie sect taking the high-road here. Just goes to show that the liberal dems are in deed nastier than most conservatives.
Comment removed.- Luv to watch him politically implode!!— hmmm
Since health benefits are not taxed as income, they are not salary. All of the judges should be paid the same salary as jurors. And now they should be forced to pay for 100% of their health care. Most do not do as good of a job as jurors and most only care about themselves and political friends. Where are checks and balances?— jp8899- Comment removed.
- .
.
.
.
Da bully man wants to yell at you
don’t give da bully man a reason ya !— Redwoodser - Some f the propagandists who write for the Inquire shoudl read the Stanford report on Pension costs in California. They are the reason behind the state's insolvency and the primary driver of the cities that have gone into bankruptcy and are yet to do so. When people poin tout that liberals hate America, it's onl ybecasue they willfully try to cover up things that really threaten to bring us down. And by the way, in CA, Pension costs have doubled in the last 10 years and are going to double again inthe next FIVE. Think about what that does to librals beloved programs.— tr88
- .
.
.
.
“They are the reason behind the state's insolvency ….”
What you’ve written is a lie. A huge part of the problem that California faces has been the missing billions of dollars over a 30 - 40 year period and counting from Proposition 13.
“Estimates are that Proposition 13 has saved ( sic) California taxpaying citizens over $528 billion (value retrieved 31 May 2009).[13]”
- Californians arent taxed enough? It's the land of ballot initiatives, if so many people want to allow California to tax more nothing is stopping them from putting it to a vote. You dont think a quadrupling of pension costs in 15 years is a problem?
By any chance are you currently or do you plan on getting a government pension?— tr88 - .
.
.
.
Yes that is a problem if your numbers are correct
and no and no.
I have no opinion on Proposition 13, I was merely relaying information that I remember reading about or seeing on television in recent months. The California “situation” is very much symbolic of the ‘lower my taxes hysteria’ that has gripped this country since fool Ronny Reagan and his voodoo economic minions started infiltrating and changing the American way of life.
All the money that we are talking about ,
we would not even be talking about,
if the Pentagon and various intelligence agencies
were not removing a trillion dollars a year
from ‘the economy’.
Our paranoid Governmental Empire and it’s war machine is destroying this country from the inside out. Period.
It doesn't really matter any more who you vote for. - "Christie has had two nominees rejected by Democratic legislators over the last few months" --- Christie can't get anyone appointed to the court because the original Party of No is blocking him.— psyrus
- Comment removed.
- Where's Willard?— Norquist
Reach him at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
Follow Matt on Twitter: @mattkatz00. Reach Matt at mkatz@phillynews.com or 609-217-8355.
