granitefox16 said:Unbelievable court ruling. Who else but anyone with half a brain would actually expect that...
I actually mentioned before that this court decision would be a bit of a Solomon-style compromise. Like, you're right that the ruling itself makes sense, but basically, we just bought ourselves a few more months before a new decision comes down.
Because that is exactly what the court did.
Robert Lee53 said:Look, the court *has* to evaluate whether a decision is proportionate—I don't see what the confusion is here. The law can't possibly account for every single conceivable scenario. It’s just like when we dealt with those COVID mandates, where the courts had to weigh whether measures infringing on certain freedoms (freedom of movement, assembly, etc.) were actually proportionate to a legitimate goal (like protecting the public from a contagious disease). It's the exact same thing here: the goal is legitimate—protecting the city budget and maintaining financial stability—but the court determined that the decision, in its current form, placed an unproportional burden on existing subsidy recipients (essentially a drastic reduction of rights they had already secured).
The court clearly took the stance that these aren't vested rights. Seriously, people need to stop making things up.
Christian Foster38 said:Now, you just know The New York Times and BuzzFeed are going to start coming for their faces and their families next.
The judge's son smashed up a car while he was drunk five years ago, and her husband runs a company that somehow landed a massive contract in Small Town, USA without even a proper bidding process—it’s the same old story.
To me, it’s just wild that they didn't bother checking if any of the judges had family members who actually rely on that financial aid.
Jeffrey Long said:Eric Adams' inner circle just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that he’s the one actually pulling the strings behind this policy reversal. He was the one insisting the measure was legally sound all along. He even went as far as calling anyone suggesting an alternative rollout nothing more than incompetent amateurs. ☕
Those sycophants missed the forest for the trees; even CNN was tearing these so-called "mitigation efforts" to pieces. To quote them, there's zero space left in daycare centers, the transition period is way too tight, and the job placement and retraining programs are practically non-existent. 🙏 🙏 🙏
Now, we're just sitting here waiting for the budget to crater—specifically on the revenue side—along with a massive freeze on Zillow's income streams. 🍿
Are you part of some cult? Because based on how little you know about this, it’s the only logical explanation. In reality, both social security credits and pension contributions are being tracked. 😉
He didn't scrap the financial aid program; he just changed the eligibility requirements. And that decision holds up legally—the court didn't even dispute that. In fact, the court confirmed that the goals he wanted to achieve through those changes were legitimate.
The legal experts advising the court went on the record saying the measure could indeed be revoked.
So, Eric Adams did his job correctly, and the judges split the vote 3 to 2.
cosmicmoose2 said:So, when is that new decision about scrapping the parent-caregiver measure actually hitting the City Council floor?
From what I gather, they’ll likely bring the amended version to the first session this fall.