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?
Tag Cloudamerica apple art auto bailout ayn rand bailout barack obama bonuses bubble Business citigroup congress consumerism consumption corporate culture corruption culture deficit democrats economics economy education entrepreneurs Environment equality facebook financial crisis financial meltdown food free market gitmo goldman sachs google GOP greed health care health care reform income inequality insurance internet john boehner john mccain libertarian lobbyists marketing McCain morals movies music Obama Philosophy photography politicians Politics Pop culture regulation Religion republicans richard posner sacrifice san francisco Sarah Palin silicon valley supreme court taxes tea party tech bubble Technology Ted Stevens terrorism Trends unions venture capital wall street wealth
Thoughtbasket\’s RSS feed
Join 75 other subscribers
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.”