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.”