Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court clears way for sale of CHRYSLER...( Rule of Law ABOLISHED!?)
http://www.drudgereport.com/ ^ | june 9 2009 | drudge

Posted on 06/09/2009 4:28:47 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45

Edited on 06/09/2009 4:38:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

High court won't block Chrysler sale

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Chrysler's sale to Fiat, turning down a last-ditch bid by opponents of the deal.

The court said late Tuesday it had rejected a plea to block the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to the Italian automaker. Chrysler, Fiat and the Obama administration had warned that the high court's intervention could have scuttled the sale.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ordered a temporary delay just before a 4 p.m. deadline on Monday.

Excerpt.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: automakers; bailoutnation; chrysler; indiana; killchryslerlist; michigan; pensionfunds; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481-485 next last
To: BCrago66

Against whom would you bring such an action? New Chrysler has no liability.


101 posted on 06/09/2009 4:57:11 PM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The “consent of the governed” is no longer required.


102 posted on 06/09/2009 4:57:18 PM PDT by papertyger (A difference that makes no difference is no difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bricklayer
Give this to me in layman’s terms, please.

The Supreme Court did not rule, one way or the other, on whether the Chrysler sale is legal, but it is refusing to stop it from going forward.

103 posted on 06/09/2009 4:57:57 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
"“You’ve already taken my property, so now please pay for it.”"

So who's the "you" directed at in "please pay for it?" Is the US government not the de facto owner of the company? And, if this "last action" is successful, is not the US taxpayer going to be the one paying the bondholders.

In other words, Barry either wins big, or he wins really big.

104 posted on 06/09/2009 4:58:13 PM PDT by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
The entire government is corrupt. Both parties, all branches.

The elephant herd is sure quiet tonight...

105 posted on 06/09/2009 4:58:28 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|"AlsoSprachTelethustra"-NonValueAdded|Lk21:36|FireTheLiar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: patton

The way our courts used to work, and I say that with a snark, you had to prove real harm, before the courts get into it. I think they saw this as a weak case at this point. Cases get refilled with stronger arguments all the time.

Do you think the enviro-nut-jobs quit after one.

It took years for the FDR Fascism to be rolled back by the courts and Congress.


106 posted on 06/09/2009 4:58:44 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TexasKate
It was per curim, it speaks for the whole court but it doesn't necessarily mean it was unanimous
107 posted on 06/09/2009 4:58:48 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (zer0 is doing to capitalism what Kennedy did to health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

BS, this was important enough to hear. If they were courageous enough they would have heard the case. Let the SCOTUS take responsibility for allowing the Executive Branch to destroy the United States of America. They were the last hope of checking the Obama Oppression. They effing failed.


108 posted on 06/09/2009 4:59:27 PM PDT by Chgogal (American Mugabe, get your arse out of my bank and get your arse out of my car!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

If a company can’t raise cash from issuing bonds, they can’t make a profit. This will spook the hell out of investors. I already moved all my money to foreign stocks and away from anything that could be tainted by Obama. The unintended consequences of government meddling should be the main story here.


109 posted on 06/09/2009 4:59:44 PM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
Bunch of Chrysler buildings are separately secured by "industrial revenue bonds". In effect, Chrysler was paying rent.

The "new Chrysler" will need to renegotiate the deals with the affected states.

I'd suggest the states may well NOT care give the "new Chrysler" the same deal ~ which includes tax abatements,

110 posted on 06/09/2009 4:59:44 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I thought Jones sounded like a kook, but , I always wondered if he just might be onto something. What if he was right? What then?

I have to go along with him now, I can no longer think any of this is just happenstance and that 2010 will make any difference. Heck, even the SCOTUS doesn’t care about the Constitution anymore.


111 posted on 06/09/2009 4:59:56 PM PDT by dforest (Anyone dumb enough to have voted for him deserves what they get.. No Pity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
It was per curim, it speaks for the whole court but it doesn't necessarily mean it was unanimous

Not necessarily, but it is common to see recorded dissents from these orders. There is none listed here.

112 posted on 06/09/2009 5:00:36 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: patton

The sale isn’t suppose to go through until next Monday. What are you talking about when you say “in about an hour” Chrysler won’t exist?


113 posted on 06/09/2009 5:00:39 PM PDT by TexasKate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Para-Ord.45,

From what I’ve heard in the last day or so, we needed 5 - not 4 - Justices to stop this freight train.

Here’s why:

It takes 4 Justices to grant “cert,” short for Certiorari, i.e., for the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case.
But this case didn’t get to this the Supreme Court via a request for cert. Because the entire case is moot if the Obama-ordered and 2nd Circuit approved sale of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” (Fiat + the federal government) is allowed to go through, this case got to the Supreme Court via an application for a STAY, i.e., a request for an injunction to stop the sale. And a stay requires 5 Justices to vote YEA. (Example: Back in 2000, we needed 5 Justices to issue a stay to stop the Florida recount in Bush v. Gore.)

So Thomas-Scalia-Roberts-Alito could have all voted YEA, and that wouldn’t be sufficient. And I’ll bet that’s what happened, too. The 4 could not convince the emotionally unpredictable Kennedy to join them.


114 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:06 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Thanks, I didn’t know that.


115 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:15 PM PDT by TexasKate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TexasKate

Yes, it was an order of the full court — but the order stated in the order that they did not decide this on any merits.

Somebody put up a link before it was like a rejection letter not a real ruling. They just lifted the stay.


116 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:20 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
We don't have decades to fix the financial markets. We have maybe six months. After that.......
117 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:25 PM PDT by Chgogal (American Mugabe, get your arse out of my bank and get your arse out of my car!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Maybe they will refile immediately.


118 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:46 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
I hope you're right, I can't believe Scalia or Thomas would go along with this.

If there were only two people in government I would trust to do the right thing, it would be them

119 posted on 06/09/2009 5:01:51 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (zer0 is doing to capitalism what Kennedy did to health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

120 posted on 06/09/2009 5:02:00 PM PDT by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481-485 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson