Posted on 06/08/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by DCBryan1
Even though she’s a lefty, there’s something fitting about an old lady with cancer sticking it to Ostammer and his henchmen.
Well, I presume Ginsburg is Jewish.
Maybe that’s why she stuck it to them.
“And now, let us celebrate “activist” courts because they are saying something we agree with! Maybe.”
I am not sure this would be activism. Is it not a case of the feds taking over a private company? I have never thought this was constitutional. Talk about interfering with interstate commerce!
“Bush started it with the bridge loan using TARP monies.”
Sad but true. It’s like the deficits graph. Bush had comparatively little ones; Obama’s projected deficits are ginourmous. TARP 1 was comparatively little; TARP 2 monstrous. But sad to say, Bush paved the way.
It has been a happy day in FReeperland.
I agree. To not have taken the case though would have been the Court’s imprimatur on the deal and the notion of stiffing secured creditors in favor of labor unions. I don’t think even Ginsburg would want their approval to be so blatant and obvious.
Nevertheless, it’s difficult for me to imagine that the Court would support the deal, but then I was wrong when I said the same thing about the Kelo case.
One thing is for sure: ostammer’s efforts to conquer the middle class by dividing it through preferential treatment and a spoils system is working. I just wonder how many of those Indiana cops and teachers and firemen invested in that pension plan holding the bonds are blaming union workers rather than ostammer. And I say that with the disclaimer that I despise labor unions.
Why do you say it is “activist” for SCOTUS to take up this case? Do you contend there is not an important constitutional question at issue?
Yeah, maybe he’s a winner. But to be brutally honest, many of those UAW workers are too stupid to know or care WHY they didn’t get what ostammer said he’d arrange for/give them. They just know they didn’t get it and he was the man who was supposed to deliver. I’ll wager most of them wouldn’t know the USSC from a felony line-up.
....yeah.......and then just wait until they start arguing that the White House counsel and the AG said it was legal, so they should skate regardless of what new legal theory crops up down the line.
First money to the automakers from TARP was by the Bush Administration, at the request of President-Elect Obama last December.
A most excellent site. Thank you! I’ve bookmarked it for future use.
All stays are temporary. Some are indefinite, but all are temporary. All cases are eventually resolved and closed, thus “vacating” the stay.
When I read stuff like that, I truly feel as though I’ve fallen into Kafka’s alternate universe and I can’t get up!!!!!!!
Thank you for the link.
Judge Taney was one Justice, he was not the USSC.
In case you haven't noticed we are in an "us-vs-them" situation. That being said, it always makes a better argument if you are consistent in your reasoning.
My husband and I will, happily.
Not true, any Justice can issue a temporary stay, and put off a hearing until they come back into session.
It will be a twist if Judge Ginsberg is remembered 100 years from now—in song, stories, poems and statues in parks—as the justice, who at the last minute, issued the stay that stopped the mad dash toward totalitarianism and preserved the Union.
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.