First, it appeared that Judge Rhodes is not sympathetic to the argument that filing for bankruptcy somehow automatically reduced pensions and is therefore unconstitutional. It does NOT mean, however, he'll be unsympathetic to objections to a plan that does so.

Second, the Judge explicitly mentioned the role of the State. That was the first time I heard that, but I've been predicting it for a while--if the plan reduces pensions, the pension plans may sue the state [[sort of as a guarantor of the obligation).

Third, the exchange about "how can the state promise that, since they can't print money?" was the most insightful.

Again, if I represent the pensioners, I negotiate the best deal I can get, and I take it. If they go to court to fight whether Chapter 9 or the state constitution prevails, they may not like the answer, and the effects the answer would have across the country.