Do you ask because you genuinely don't know and cannot intuit it from the context of the discussion about the ruling?
I think I understand 'who' you are talking about from context. But the description of 'less powerful' throws me off.
Those state pensioners belonged to powerful unions that contributed to the campaigns of the officials who got elected and then made decisions on those benefits. The unions have much more power than the typical taxpayer in IL.
I think a strong case can be made that the under-funding of these pensions was a collusion between the union leaders and the politicians. To keep them fully funded would have forced raising taxes in real time, and that would have brought more attention to the benefits, and likely the voters would have said 'we can't afford this - stop increasing benefits!'. But knowing they had the protection of the Constitution, they could kick the can down the road, and the bill comes due after they are out of office/retired.
Personally, I'd prefer states pay living wages to all public employees, commensurate with no pension guarantees ...
I agree that pension promises should be taken out of the equation - no one can predict the future, so don't promise it, especially when those promises will need to be kept by a different group than who made them. But I think wages should be based on a fiscally sound approach - pay no more than the market will bear, not some artificial determination of what constitutes a 'living wage'. I don't care for price fixing of any kind.
A determination that very naturally should be made on moral, not financial, grounds -
Now I lost your context. If you are talking the SC, I think they should make the determination solely on legal grounds, in keeping with the concept of division of powers.
As far as legislatures, I don't think you can realistically separate moral from financial grounds. You need to work within the resources you have. Isn't it also immoral to promise something you can't deliver?
If IL simply raises taxes to pay for everything w/o making other cuts, they run the
risk of driving enough business and taxpayers out and decreasing the tax base. Which means raising tax rates higher on the remaining tax payers to capture the same revenue, and so on. A downward spiral.
-ERD50