OK, the justices didn’t exactly mention me in their decision, but they did unanimously (according to Scotusblog) rule against the Indiana pension funds who were whining that they hadn’t gotten enough money for their secured debt. The highest court in the country has thus decided that the Obama administration did not violate the rule of law in pushing through the Chrysler bankruptcy. Read here my post saying just that. Of course, some argue that this issue is too political for the Court to be focused just on the law, but if that were the driving issue here, wouldn’t this conservative court be likely to rule against Obama, not for him?
Blogroll
Sites
Archives
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
Tag Cloud
america apple ayn rand bailout barack obama bonuses Business congress consumerism consumption corruption culture democrats economics economy Environment financial meltdown goldman sachs GOP greed health care health care reform income inequality insurance internet john mccain lobbyists McCain Obama Philosophy politicians Politics Pop culture regulation Religion republicans Sarah Palin supreme court taxes tea party Technology terrorism Trends wall street wealthSearch
-
Recent Posts
Thoughtbasket’s RSS feed
Thoughtbasket doesn’t appear to have read the linked article. The Supremes did NOT rule on whether Obama violated the rule of law in pushing through the bankruptcy. The article specifically notes that the Court was “stressing that it was not ruling on the merits of these challenges”.
The court is really turning back what is in essence a very ill considered attack on the very well established, broad discretion of bankruptcy courts to get very involved in how a company may or may not go bankrupt and how it may or may not reorganize.
Nothing here says the courts have to approve or not approve of tax-payer money being involved in the restructuring of this company, or that any decision with regard to that money in this particular case is going to set a hard and fast precedent for future bankruptcy cases that the other two branches of government seem concerned about.
It’s a smart ruling by a prudent court that is defending the prerogative of the courts. Below is some text from the scotus blog.
Third, the Court stressed that no one had a right to a delay, since that was a matter of “judicial discretion.” It added that the party seeking the stay had the burden of justifying it, and concluded: “The applicants have not carried that burden.”
Finally, it stressed that the matter was one to be examined on the basis of a particular case, requiring “individualized judgments in each case.” It closed with this: “Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone.”