"Top judges question budget plan; Patrick's proposal may mean job cuts" by Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | April 1, 2009
.... Patrick said the court system is in the same bind as the rest of the state government because of the recession and budget shortfalls. He issued the same challenge to the judiciary as he has to other government agencies seeking more funding: "You tell me what we should cut."
Governor, how many times I gotta put them up?
The State Budget Swindle
Governor Guts State Services
Pigs at the State Trough
A Slow Saturday Special: Statehouse Slush Fund
Hollywood S***s on Massachusetts
You can START ANYWHERE there!!!!
"I have to think about the courts, services for the mentally ill, healthcare, and education," he added. "Nobody right now has enough."
Yes, HE IS the MOST ARROGANT and OFFENSIVE PERSON I have ever seen.
A CORPORATE LAWYER, and does it ever show!!!
Before the rally, Marshall and Mulligan spent about an hour lobbying legislative leaders for additional funding.
How much ya need, judge? A Slow Saturday Special: Statehouse Slush Fund
The two want the trial courts to receive the same $583.7 million they got this year, plus $17.5 million to fund a previously negotiated pay raise with a clerical workers' union. (The union workers did not receive a negotiated raise last year, a court spokeswoman said.)
Unions always getting screwed these days!! Car workers, state workers, you name 'em!
The judges also want the Appeals Court and the SJC to receive another $21.5 million, bringing the judiciary's total request to $622.7 million. Patrick is proposing a total budget of $579.4 million for the judiciary.
Seth Gitell, a spokesman for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, said of the meeting with the two judges: "He heard what they had to say. No decisions have been made." A spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray did not return calls for comment.
Marshall and Mulligan acknowledged that times are tough and joblessness is rising. But they said that is often when the courts play a particularly crucial role in settling disputes involving child support, domestic violence, and other problems exacerbated by unemployment.
Anything to justify there existence; that's what I see the courts. Forget common sense; let's make the laws confusing so you need the self-perpetuating system of lawyers who become politicians and judges. That's not to say there should be no courts; however, we are talking about an EXCLUSIVE CLUB here! That PROSECUTOR and DEFENSE LAWYER go to the SAME WATERING HOLE after work. The DEFENSE GUY is FRIENDLIER with the PROSECUTOR than the CLIENT!! How'd you do today, Bob?!!
Mulligan said many trial courts in the state - in particular district courts, land courts, and housing courts - already have less than 70 percent of optimum staffing and would have trouble sustaining further cuts....
You know where to go to get the $$$.
--more--"
