Supreme Court Agrees With Thoughtbasket

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?

Advertisements

2 responses to “Supreme Court Agrees With Thoughtbasket

  1. 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”.

  2. zeusiswatching

    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.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s