N.J. High Court Rules in Christie’s Favor in Pension Lawsuit

[Omaha Steve]

Source: WSJ

State isn’t obligated to pay cost-of-living increases to retirees

By KATE KING

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 6-1 Thursday that the state had the authority to suspend cost-of-living increases for public-worker pensions in 2011, a victory for Gov. Chris Christie who sought to rein in the pension system.

The ruling also spared New Jersey a major funding challenge. Moody’s Investors Service estimated in January that the state’s unfunded pension liability, which currently stands at more than $40 billion, would increase 33% if the court overturned the cost-of-living suspension.

“The Legislature retained its inherent sovereign right to act in its best judgment of the public interest and to pass legislation suspending further” cost-of-living adjustments, according to the court’s majority opinion.

Aides to Mr. Christie, a Republican, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

FULL story at link.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scored a victory Thursday when the New Jersey Supreme Court sided with him in a lawsuit challenging his 2011 pension overhaul. PHOTO: MEL EVANS/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/n-j-high-court-rules-in-christies-favor-in-pension-lawsuit-1465487544

[merrily]

1. No words.

[femmocrat]

2. Boooooo.

[askeptic]

3. Translation: The State is never bound to it's promises. State Workers are putzes for believing

that the State ever intended to keep its promises $40 billion underfunded? What's to keep the State from saying it can't afford the pensions, either? No one could blame state workers for leaving in droves since their promises aren't enforceable. Just remember that not keeping promises YOU made to the state, however, will result in severe consequences...

[closeupready]

4. I hope this is appealed to the US Supremem Court.

[happyslug]

8. The only Federal Issue is one of Contracts...

AND it is a good grounds, See Article., Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The problem is what is "impairing the Obligation of Contracts"? IS suspending cost of living an impediment or is

Here is the actual Decision:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A717214Rvc.pdf

In the opinion, the Court ruled that a statute does NOT create a contract except if that is clear on the record and the Court refused to find just language in the Statute creating the pension plan. The Court went on and on about the COLA NOT being part of any intent on the Legislature when it was added to the "Non-Forfeitable Right Statute" that covers Pensions.

I do love the dissents opening argument against the decision of the majority:

Sometimes a plainly written statute is just a plainly written statute. I do not agree with the majority that the pension statutes at issue, which guarantee retired public employees a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), lack clarity or are susceptible to two interpretations.

Now, while I suspect the Federal Contract rights were persevered by the Plaintiffs, the issue here is on what did the State Legislature pass when it pass the "Non-Forfeitable Right Statute"? The Federal Courts have a tendency to defer to the State Courts when it comes to interpretation of State Laws, thus it is very possible a federal court will rule defer to the New Jersey Supreme Court's interpretation of what the New Jersey Legislature passed. On the other hand the US Supreme Court may reject that finding on the ground this is a clear case of the State Impeding a contract. We shall see what happens.

[Ohioblue22]

5. You wanted him you got him . Twice if I'm. Otherwise mistaken

[bklyncowgirl]

6. Not me, I held my nose & voted for Corzine.

And the poor sacrificial lamb the cowardly NJ Dems put up against him.

[Sam_Fields]

7. Please don't allow links to articles behind paywalls.

Besides the WSJ is bias towards the poor and working class.

[happyslug]

9. Here is the actual Decision, if you want to read it yourself.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A717214Rvc.pdf

[mdbl]

10. If you can't trust a state government to keep their agreements

you really can't trust anyone anymore. Thanks NJ!