...thus far.
Interesting little dust-up over breaking union contracts by cities over at Law.com
While I understand the basics here, I don't see the horror - until a higher court decides to make law, as is their wont, especially in California.
Seems to me the process is working as the Founders intended.
1. People quibble over the law, and take it to court.
2. Judge reads the law. Notes the discrepancy and says, "The law, as written by Congress, says "thus and such" and rules appropriately.
3. The problem, being legislatively created, *should* then kick back to the legislators to correct, amend, or let stand.
But we'll probably just see the Judges in the appeals court decide that's too messy and just legislate from the bench. But at this point - gosh, the system seems to be working as intended. And the unions should be calling Nancy Pelosi, rather than tickling judicial egos upstream. But I dream.
Perhaps one of you lawyers who lurk here might weigh in?
H/t, David Freddoso in The Corner.
Interesting little dust-up over breaking union contracts by cities over at Law.com
While I understand the basics here, I don't see the horror - until a higher court decides to make law, as is their wont, especially in California.
Seems to me the process is working as the Founders intended.
1. People quibble over the law, and take it to court.
2. Judge reads the law. Notes the discrepancy and says, "The law, as written by Congress, says "thus and such" and rules appropriately.
3. The problem, being legislatively created, *should* then kick back to the legislators to correct, amend, or let stand.
But we'll probably just see the Judges in the appeals court decide that's too messy and just legislate from the bench. But at this point - gosh, the system seems to be working as intended. And the unions should be calling Nancy Pelosi, rather than tickling judicial egos upstream. But I dream.
Perhaps one of you lawyers who lurk here might weigh in?
H/t, David Freddoso in The Corner.
I am sure the judge reviewed the legislative history of the said section in addition to the actual law and, if the legislative history did not indicate the Congress' intent to incorporate this section into Chapter 9, then the ruling stands and yes, the unions should be calling their Congresswoman.
the second issue is whether or not the city proved that these union contracts were further bankrupting the city... that factual issue can be appealed...
Legal Disclaimer: I do not specialize in the bankruptcy law :o)
As I look at this, contract law has *a* place, but it's *not* the only player in the game.