To the surprise of none, Supreme Court of IL rules pension reduction unconstitutional

To catch up, the previous Governor Pat Quinn and the State Legislature planned numerous cuts to public employee pensions (which have been "underpaid" for years).

The unions and even non-Commies pointed out that this would lead to a pointless legal fight because the IL constitution is explicitly clear that you can't do this.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously agreed:

Quote:

"Our economy is and has always been subject to fluctuations, sometimes very extreme fluctuations," Republican Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote on behalf of all seven justices. "The law was clear that the promised benefits would therefore have to be paid and that the responsibility for providing the state's share of the necessary funding fell squarely on the legislature's shoulders. "The General Assembly may find itself in crisis, but it is a crisis which other public pension systems managed to avoid and ... it is a crisis for which the General Assembly itself is largely responsible," Karmeier wrote. "It is our obligation, however, just as it is theirs, to ensure that the law is followed. That is true at all times. It is especially important in times of crisis when, as this case demonstrates, even clear principles and long-standing precedent are threatened. Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law. It is a summons to defend it," he wrote.

Linky.

Burn!

Now we have a new Governor, but his solution is barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

Quote:

In a statement Friday, Republican Governor Bruce Rauner called the Supreme Court ruling "fair and right," and he called for a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to reduce future pension benefits without affecting benefits already earned. His proposed budget for the next fiscal year included $2.2 billion dollars in savings from his own pension reform plan, which he has not released publicly, saying he was waiting on the court's long anticipated ruling. The Civic Federation of Chicago, a non-partisan budget watchdog group, this week called the governor's budget "unrealistic," relying on savings "that do not appear to be achievable or prudent in light of the State of Illinois' obligations and long-term policy objectives."

Linky.

Quote:

But it was unclear how such an amendment would help solve the crisis. It arguably could not bring savings because, according to the court ruling, a new law cannot retroactively affect those who are already in the system, said Charles N. Wheeler III, Director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “I would say it’s irrelevant,” Wheeler said. “The court is saying the benefits are what they are for people in the system. Even if you were to do away with the pension law all together, I don’t think you can do that retroactively. So I think he can talk about that, but I think it’s a meaningless gesture. “My prediction, based on what the court has said so far, is the amendment wouldn’t be constitutional for those in the system. You don’t need an amendment to do whatever you want to people who aren’t in the system yet.”

Linky.

And we just cut taxes to expire this year too. Brilliant!

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1H86QuV