-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
James Spiotto, a nationally recognized bankruptcy expert, now has a new paper out with an excellent discussion of the viability of the “police power” rationale under federal law. See discussion starting on page 42 https://wirepoints.org/what-the-supreme-courts-new-majority-means-for-illinois-fiscal-mess-crains/#respond
Judicial activism is whats called for.
A re-interpretation and expansion of the gurantee clause to guarantee police powers over even state constitutional gurantees. (broad fiscal interpretaion of police power and not de-minimum services). You want an activist court indeed!
Say goodbye to precedent (as in Janus) lets make some new law from the bench. Judicial Activism can be a great thing. Right?
But NOT when the other side does it, then its bad. So simple.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” What’s to interpret?
Got any precedent for your suggested broadening of the clause?
Waiting for a cite.
Some new ground will probably have to be broken — just like most of the other changes in trajectory that are needed in the law from time to time. A new conservative majority is just what is needed to reconsider traditional (i.e. precedential) responses to novel issues. (A lot like the IL Sup Ct decision on contract rights, although it followed 1945 California precedent.) If you are interested in exploring for an open path (rather than erecting roadblocks) there’s a lot of research online. Start with a Google search on .
Conservative principles DO NOT call for Judicial Activism never have never will. Judicial restraint, respect for legal precedent is usually the conservative refrain. Thats the irony here…..Mark is calling for Federal Judges to do what could not be accomplished legislatively or electorally. Mark is advocating that the gurantee clause be expanded and applied in ways it has never been before. Mark is in effect turning to the feds for a bailout….not a monetary bailout…but a FEDERAL bailout nonetheless….through Judicial Activism. New expansive readings of the U.S.Constitution is a liberal exercise not conservative….but call it what you will….if the ends justify… Read more »
Have you been watching the news? Citizens United, Janus, Bush v Gore, Masterpiece Cake? Will it be Judicial Activism to overrule Roe v Wade, or was Roe v Wade Judicial Activism? The best idea should triumph, not the best label. Reminds me of supremacy vs sovereignty, as if finding the right label determines outcome. Sure, marketers influence decisions. That’s why democrats call themselves progressives instead of liberals. But don’t go all P.T. Barnum on me. I like “bailout” because it saves the boat. Hopefully it also saves the passengers. But are we to view taxpayers or public retirees as the… Read more »
None. But I certainly wouldn’t call it broadening since this is a matter of plain meaning and the Court has really never done much with it, always ducking questions on the grounds that political questions had been raised. As for me being a conservative, maybe that’s wrong. I’ve thought of myself as a JFK Dem all my life, but they fled the Dems long ago. I just believe in stuff that works, individual liberty and the Founders.
The confirmation process will take some time, but I think the strategic planning should start now (if it hasn’t already). Could Harvey and/or others prepare a federal action based on one or more theories (e.g. republican form of government or public safety) and get a case filed? I know Cravath offered to do something pro bono in Pennsylvania.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/bankruptcy/b/bankruptcy-law-blog/archive/2010/12/01/big-respect-for-cravath-and-its-bankruptcy-department-on-harrisburg-
representation.aspx?Redirected=true
There may not be a more propitious time to mount a major legal initiative.
That is exactly the right question. The answer seems to me to be ‘yes,’ though I am keeping an open mind based on reputable opinions. I have talked to at least one recognized, national expert who thinks such a case could be filed. He has not gone public yet making the full case so I won’t jump the gun and name him. That link looks interesting but didn’t work. Kindly try again. And your final point is important. The most propitious time and facts for the right test case would be important.
Here is a different link to an article on the same topic.
http://news.trust.org/item/20101111192500-8i2yd
Others may be found on a Google search .
Jones Day was lead counsel in the Detroit bankruptcy. Firms with large governmental law and municipal bond practices probably would not undertake something that would be viewed as undercutting public employees and legislators.
Interesting. I was not aware Cravath had done that. Jones Day is one taking an active role behind the scenes on bankruptcy reforms. We’d be blessed to have its Kevin Orr, who was Emergency Manager in Detroit, do the same for Chicago.