1 posted on
05/12/2010 4:42:16 PM PDT by
SmithL
Kahn, Lawrence E.
- Born 1937 in Troy, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on April 18, 1996, to a seat vacated by Neal P. McCurn; Confirmed by the Senate on July 16, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996. Assumed senior status on August 1, 2007.
Education:
Oxford University
Union College, A.B., 1959
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1962
Professional Career:
Private practice, Albany, New York, 1963-1973
Assistant corporation counsel, City of Albany, New York, 1963-1968
Surrogate judge, Albany County Surrogate's Court, New York, 1973-1979
Justice, New York State Supreme Court, 1980-1996
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
2 posted on
05/12/2010 4:43:10 PM PDT by
SmithL
To: SmithL
So... I guess the Judge will be paying the bill out of his own pocket, right? [/s]
3 posted on
05/12/2010 4:45:04 PM PDT by
rbg81
(DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
To: SmithL
Is it necessary to add, “unelected” judge?
4 posted on
05/12/2010 4:46:41 PM PDT by
marron
To: SmithL
It is kinda the governments fault for agreeing to these contracts.
Without furloughs, I guess NY will just have to fire some of these workers. I seriously doubt New Yorkers will notice.
To: SmithL
The Marxists will rule with an iron fist.
7 posted on
05/12/2010 4:49:09 PM PDT by
Navy Patriot
(Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
To: SmithL
It seems the court is hanging it's hat on the following alleged violation of the Constitution:
“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.”
However, it seems a stretch. New York isn't impairing the obligation of contracts in a law, it is involved in the specific contracts. It doesn't seem to be any of the Federal Government's business. This is one of the contractees involved with another contractee and should be in state court.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this is just my thoughts on the appearance of it. The order is at the link. Any real lawyers out there want to explain it? It would be appreciated about how the Feds have jurisdiction.
9 posted on
05/12/2010 4:52:11 PM PDT by
IrishCatholic
(No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
To: SmithL
I was actually looking forward to having every Friday off this summer.
10 posted on
05/12/2010 4:52:14 PM PDT by
ez
("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
To: SmithL
Collectivism, meet Reality.
You two have a nice visit with each other.
12 posted on
05/12/2010 4:54:43 PM PDT by
lurk
To: SmithL
13 posted on
05/12/2010 4:59:44 PM PDT by
mimaw
To: SmithL
The proper response is “Judge Kahn has made his ruling. Now lets see him enforce it.” Then go ahead with the furloughs.
15 posted on
05/12/2010 5:24:21 PM PDT by
Little Ray
(The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
To: SmithL
The judge also gave the state of New York permission to start printing money to pay its bills. One day a governor will tell the judge, thank you for sharing and then go ahead and, in this case, implement the furloughs.
A stand off between the courts and the legislature is needed. Let the Supreme Court rule on this judicial activism.
To: SmithL
19 posted on
05/12/2010 5:47:09 PM PDT by
kabar
To: SmithL
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/chode6/chode2.gif)
unions destroy everything they come in contact with... including states and governments
20 posted on
05/12/2010 5:51:59 PM PDT by
Chode
(American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson