Bankruptcy Battle Ends
Pensions Unscathed In Stockton
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    The decision maybe appealed.

    • FriendlyGoat

      True. Five Catholic Republican males (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) are always waiting at the U.S. Supreme Court to screw up any andd every important issue for citizens.

      • Tom

        Observe, if you will, the reducing of people to categories. Does the heart good, I tell you.

        • FriendlyGoat

          The more we categorize them in advance, the fewer bad decisions we will get from them acting SOLELY on their own, as they have proven themselves to do—-because of their required concern for “appearance” of the Court. I have been arguing this for at least five years in various places. Not enough people are willing to join this, which is THE ONLY strategy to control them while they sit there.

          • Tom

            Brilliant plan! Subvert the independence of the judiciary by making them objects of opprobium because they are actually interpreting instead of making law! I cannot see any possible way for this to cause problems down the road.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The Supreme Court has nine members. If five members from ONE gender, ONE political party and ONE church are making EVERY decision for eight years and running, it’s time for some subversion. All that is needed is for us to embarrass them over the nature of their bloc until they split from each other a little more. Then we get to hear from our other four Justices too—-members, as they also are, of that “independent judiciary” of which you speak.

          • Tom

            Yes, that bloc is so embarrassing. Whyever would one want to be thought of as Catholic, Republican, and male? The mind boggles.
            And you seriously intend to permanently subvert an over 200 year old institution, an important one, for something that’s gone on for eight years? Get over yourself.

      • qet

        The people who pay the taxes that pay those pensions are citizens every bit as much as the retired workers receiving them. You really need to climb out of your binary Manichaean hole sometime and take a look around at the world you actually live in.

  • qet

    So basically it sounds as though current workers sacrificed to the pensions of their predecessors. Is that right? Foregoing “free medical care in retirement” sounds like a big give. Was that done in the spirit of solidarity with the workers, or perhaps because somehow under the ACA or otherwise those current workers know they will receive subsidies out of the general federal revenues with which to “purchase” comparable medical care? In other words, was the compromise the result simply of shifting an obligation from one set of taxpayers to another set?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.