Skip to comments.
BREAKING: USSC delays Chrysler asset sale!
CNBC Breaking News (live) ^
| 08 JUL 09
| dcbryan1
Posted on 06/08/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by DCBryan1
Breaking on CNBC:
USSC delays Chyrsler asset sale!
Mourdock: USe of Tarp Funds in automotive industry was illegal
Obama admin had urged USSC NOT to keep chrysler deal on hold
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; automakers; bankruptcy; bho44; bhoscotus; bitchslap; breyer; chapter11; chapter7; chrysler; dictatorspeedbump; fiat; ginsberg; gm; irs; italy; judicialactivism; kennedy; obama; roberts; ruleoflaw; ruling; scalia; scalito; scotus; sotomayor; stephens; tarp; thomas; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-294 next last
DEVELOPING HARD!
1
posted on
06/08/2009 1:08:49 PM PDT
by
DCBryan1
To: DCBryan1
2
posted on
06/08/2009 1:09:47 PM PDT
by
bolobaby
To: DCBryan1
SO the entire SCOTUS is going to hear the case?
Hopefully they’ll throw TARP out the window.
3
posted on
06/08/2009 1:09:49 PM PDT
by
Boiling Pots
(Barack Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
To: DCBryan1
Gee, maybe the USSC can actually save the bond market.
4
posted on
06/08/2009 1:10:02 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(10 million views of .HILLARY! UNCENSORED - put some ice on it, witch)
To: DCBryan1
This was just on WLS radio as well.
Go Indiana!!!
5
posted on
06/08/2009 1:10:26 PM PDT
by
blf1776
(Peepole, Peepole who need Peepole, are the luckiest Peepole in the world)
To: DCBryan1
Oooh and SCOTUS blindsides OStammer with a hard Right!
6
posted on
06/08/2009 1:11:10 PM PDT
by
theDentist
(qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
To: DCBryan1
Indiana no likey Obama anymore.
To: DCBryan1
Could it be that the unconstitutional TARP will have its day of judgment?
To: DCBryan1
Do we know which justice ruled on the hearing?
9
posted on
06/08/2009 1:11:41 PM PDT
by
DallasDeb
(USAFA '06 Mom)
To: DCBryan1
To: DCBryan1
This is a BIG BLACK EYE to Obama Co. and Commie associates INTL.
USSC would not have issued a stay/hold if they didnt intend to sit and rule on the constitutionality of the whole deal.
This is a triumph, also, for independent chrysler dealers, and possible conservatives targeted for closing.
This also helps the rule of law and bankruptcy laws RE: Secured creditors in the GM bankruptcy.
On this news...Market went from -60 to +2 on the DJIA.
CNBC just hosted IN state treasurer.
11
posted on
06/08/2009 1:11:58 PM PDT
by
DCBryan1
(Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims. Execute child molesters RFN!)
To: DallasDeb
I believe it was Ginsberg.
To: DCBryan1
I’m impressed Ginsberg didn’t side with the Obama administration. Just wow. It gives me hopes the separation of powers might not be completely dead.
13
posted on
06/08/2009 1:12:45 PM PDT
by
FourPeas
(Why does Professor Presbury's wolfhound, Roy, endeavour to bite him?)
To: DCBryan1
To: DallasDeb
15
posted on
06/08/2009 1:13:18 PM PDT
by
FourPeas
(Why does Professor Presbury's wolfhound, Roy, endeavour to bite him?)
To: Boiling Pots
Happy Days are here again,
the sky above is clear again...
Protect the ‘Rule of Law’!
else we digress into the law of the jungle...
To: DallasDeb
17
posted on
06/08/2009 1:13:36 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: DCBryan1
Sorry Barry! You’ve been declined!
To: DCBryan1
Thats gonna leave a mark! hehehehehe
19
posted on
06/08/2009 1:14:23 PM PDT
by
tiredoflaundry
(I will not be silenced.)
To: DCBryan1
Oh, dear God, preserve our Republic.
20
posted on
06/08/2009 1:14:44 PM PDT
by
Marie2
(The second mouse gets the cheese.)
To: DCBryan1
USSC would not have issued a stay/hold if they didnt intend to sit and rule on the constitutionality of the whole deal. Don't go counting your chickens.
To: Marie2
22
posted on
06/08/2009 1:15:38 PM PDT
by
ltc8k6
To: DCBryan1
Take that, and that, and that, and THAT!! (sounds of Zero’s floppy ears getting boxed by Buzzy Ginsburg)
To: jennyjenny
Indiana no likey Obama anymore.And vicey versey, no doubt. Elkhart? What Elkart?
24
posted on
06/08/2009 1:16:18 PM PDT
by
Ahithophel
(Padron@Anniversario)
To: Bender2; txhurl; nuconvert
25
posted on
06/08/2009 1:16:35 PM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: DCBryan1
USSC would not have issued a stay/hold if they didnt intend to sit and rule on the constitutionality of the whole deal. Solicitor General Kagan argued that the Supreme Court didn't have authority to rule on this case. I wouldn't be surprised that the USSC took the case just to rule that they do have authority over it no matter which way they rule.
26
posted on
06/08/2009 1:16:57 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Chrysler and GM are what Marx meant by the means of production.)
To: DCBryan1
Uh oh - Michelle is gonna be scowling ever more than usual now.
27
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:05 PM PDT
by
reagan_fanatic
(When you put Democrats in charge, stupid things happen)
To: DCBryan1
HUSSEIN LOSES TO SCOTUS
for the time being, anyway.
28
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:16 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm SO glad I no longer belong to the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: DCBryan1
Obummer is not going to like this. Not one bit.
He doesn’t like people who follow a just law and the Constitution.
Thank God the SCOTUS is not lost...yet.
Preserve our Republic!
29
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:22 PM PDT
by
JenB987
To: DCBryan1
30
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:26 PM PDT
by
Revelation 911
(How many 100's of 1000's of our servicemen died so we would never bow to a king?" -freeper pnh102)
To: DCBryan1
The current wall street folks are bunch of socialist limousine liberals. I think they want socialism as much as Obama does.
31
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:31 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(God Bless our brave troops)
To: DCBryan1
Id the Court hears the case, and if they ultimately rule the use of TARP funds for auto makers was not authorized, somebody should actually go to jail for misappropriation of funds.
If the CEO of a corporation had done something similar with borrowed funds, he would do time.
In this case, would it be Turbo Tax Timmy? Or would it be an impeachable offense for The Won?
32
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:31 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
(You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
To: DCBryan1
33
posted on
06/08/2009 1:17:41 PM PDT
by
RushIsMyTeddyBear
(Obama. Clear and Pres__ent Danger.)
To: americanophile
“Could it be that the unconstitutional TARP will have its day of judgment?”
I guess we can still hope!
34
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:16 PM PDT
by
AuntB
(The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
To: DCBryan1
35
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:26 PM PDT
by
LikeLight
(http://www.believersguidetolegalissues.com)
To: Snickering Hound
LMAO! Perfect pic for the occasion. ;-)
36
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:27 PM PDT
by
RushIsMyTeddyBear
(Obama. Clear and Pres__ent Danger.)
To: DCBryan1
Obama admin had urged USSC NOT to keep chrysler deal on hold Urging thats not above your pay grade, Obomba?
37
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:41 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: technically right
UAW Death Sqaud Teams and Bus Loads of ACORN Teams are heading to Indiana now to help explain things to the populace
38
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:41 PM PDT
by
Scythian
39
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:49 PM PDT
by
tiredoflaundry
(I will not be silenced.)
To: DCBryan1
Obviously Obama will say the court is too Conservative. USSC may be the last chance to save America. I nominate everything that Obama does be challenged in the USSC starting with his official record of BIRTH.
40
posted on
06/08/2009 1:18:53 PM PDT
by
Typical_Whitey
(Hey Obama how many Freedoms have you taken away from Americans today?)
To: ltc8k6
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
“UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants, and the responses filed thereto,
IT IS ORDERED that the orders of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, case No. 09-50002, dated May 31 and June 1, 2009, are stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.”
41
posted on
06/08/2009 1:19:01 PM PDT
by
kcvl
To: DCBryan1
Obviously Barry got the twitter on the back nine.
;)
42
posted on
06/08/2009 1:19:20 PM PDT
by
maggief
(I)
To: DCBryan1
SCOTUSblog is saying that nothing can be read into her brief statement. All it means is that she, or perhaps the full court, need a bit more time to decide whether to take the case or not.
At the top here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ for now.
To: DCBryan1
FROM THE LINK Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has temporarily delayed Chrysler's sale to Fiat.
Ginsburg says in an order Monday that the sale is "stayed pending further order."
The action indicates that the delay may only be temporary.
Chrysler has said a delay could scuttle the deal.
A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents some time to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Chrysler case could set a precedent for General Motors[GMGMQ 1.21 0.345 (+39.88%) ], which is using a similar quick-sale strategy in its bankruptcy in New York.
A group of Indiana pension funds argued that the sale of Chrysler unlawfully rewards unsecured creditors ahead of secured lenders and amounts to an illegal reorganization plan, and that the U.S. Treasury Department overstepped its legal authority by using bailout funds for Chrysler when Congress intended the money for banks.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
44
posted on
06/08/2009 1:20:40 PM PDT
by
DCBryan1
(Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims. Execute child molesters RFN!)
To: Boiling Pots
It appears to be an open question what will happen, but obviously this is A first step.
45
posted on
06/08/2009 1:20:41 PM PDT
by
PghBaldy
(Prince Arugula and Lady Armpit, AKA BO & MO are driving me batty!)
To: DCBryan1
Benito Obama will not be pleased.
To: kcvl
The
ScotusBlog take is that Ginsburg issued the stay to give the Supreme Court more time to review. I got the impression that they were throwing cold water on the idea that the Court will take up the case.
47
posted on
06/08/2009 1:21:32 PM PDT
by
TonyInOhio
( It is hot in Suez. The dice are on the table.)
To: Snickering Hound
Constitutional Scholar
48
posted on
06/08/2009 1:22:17 PM PDT
by
maggief
(I)
To: DCBryan1

Ruth??? Ruth??? Dammit Ruth...let me in.
49
posted on
06/08/2009 1:22:44 PM PDT
by
IrishPennant
(RLT = Radical Left Terrorism...feel it????)
To: DCBryan1
You’d think Obama would have learned from FDR when trying to take over an economy: stack the Supreme Court with cronies before breaking the laws written in the Constitution. It’s also in every “dictator for dummies” book ever written. Jeez, where did Obama get his education?!?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-294 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson