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

Skip to comments.

Supremes Rebuff Chrysler Creditors (Dingell attacks pensioners for refusing 'small sacrifice')
National Review ^ | 6/10/2009 | Henry Payne

Posted on 06/10/2009 5:57:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

After weeks of White House threats and media cover-up, Chrysler’s remaining debt holders got their day before the Supreme Court Tuesday . . . and lost. The decision was no surprise to legal experts who say Chrysler’s restructuring was simply too far down the road to reverse. No doubt, this entire episode would have been different if a Republican administration had sought to rip up bankruptcy laws to benefit political allies. The media watchdog would have barked, fundamentally changing the playing field.

While the White House claimed victory, the plaintiff Indiana pension funds at least scored points that may protect against future abuses of government power. “The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of a massively powerful executive branch,” lawyers for Indiana public employees wrote the Supreme Court.

The ruling also clarified where America’s self-appointed Democratic civil libertarians really stand when it comes to the rule of law.

“Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chrysler’s autoworkers, accepted shared sacrifice because they recognized their interest was better served keeping Chrysler alive rather than forcing liquidation,” Rep. Gary Peters (R., Mich.) said in a statement, tacitly endorsing the administration’s threats that forced “other stakeholders” to fold their tent, leaving the Indiana pensioners alone in challenging Don Obama and his crew. “Why the officials who decided to take their objections all the way to the Supreme Court can’t recognize this is beyond me.”

Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), echoed Peters in attacking Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds: "By refusing to make the relatively small sacrifices that would avert a calamity. The pension funds will instead create a great catastrophe, which is the same kind of short-sighted thinking that got us into the Great Depression."

It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chrysler; dingell; supremecourt

1 posted on 06/10/2009 5:57:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The very bases of a Banana Republic.

Where the rule of law is whatever the top tyrant says it is.


2 posted on 06/10/2009 6:01:28 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Dingell,has no problem,taking the retirement funds from common people.......but ask him to take a pay or benefit cut and he'd scream like school girl.

Time to take this country back anyway we can.

3 posted on 06/10/2009 6:02:06 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I wonder how Indiana will vote in the next election. The Republicans should hang this mess around the dems neck and remind the Indiana pensioners of the theft of their retirement by the democrats everyday


4 posted on 06/10/2009 6:06:03 AM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?

Yep, this was no shared sacrifice, it was redistribution from bond-holders to the big unions. The political payback is disgusting and not being reported.

5 posted on 06/10/2009 6:06:07 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
Welcome to New Kenya! (Africa U.S.A.)

Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land!

6 posted on 06/10/2009 6:06:14 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Once a Republic, Now a State, Still Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It suspends belief.


7 posted on 06/10/2009 6:06:24 AM PDT by FourPeas (Why does Professor Presbury's wolfhound, Roy, endeavour to bite him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martinidon
I wonder how Indiana will vote in the next election. The Republicans should hang this mess around the dems neck and remind the Indiana pensioners of the theft of their retirement by the democrats everyday

But that would be mean-spirited negative attack ads, only Democrats are allowed to do that.

8 posted on 06/10/2009 6:07:36 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

This is too fun to watch.
Now the House is talking about rebates for clunkers.

Just what the dealers need right now.

Consumers putting off purchases until the Feds get a rebate
plan together.


9 posted on 06/10/2009 6:10:01 AM PDT by oldpass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Investors are watching this too and should be taking appropriate action.


10 posted on 06/10/2009 6:14:21 AM PDT by Need4Truth (Washington DC is a foreign entity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Yep, this was no shared sacrifice, it was redistribution from bond-holders to the big unions

What really surprised and disappointed me was how the conservative wing of the SCOTUS ( Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito ) did NOTHING to stop this travesty.

If we can't even rely on them to protect a creditor's rights, we're done for us a nation.
11 posted on 06/10/2009 6:14:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oldpass

Yes, and I heard it’s something like $4,500. Boy oh boy, that’ll go a long way towards the price of a $35,000 “greener, eco-friendly, fuel-sipping” Obamamobile


12 posted on 06/10/2009 6:15:33 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: oldpass
This decision to not take this case shows that we have gone beyond the edge here now. Even the great haberdasher had his face slapped by the then supreme court when he tried to seize the steel industry. Today, they just turn a deaf ear as they probably did not wish to interfere with their coming vacation.

In the media they said there was another issue that is that the TARP legislation did not allow for such actions. The media was trying to downplay this but this was the gist of the case that is there was no legal right to do what was done. In Youngstown v Sawyer (the Steel case of 52) the court did not rule on the governments use of emergency powers to seize private property rather the ruling in favor of Steel was based on the fact there was no law to cover Truman's actions. Hence the need to fight the TARP laws extension beyond the banks. My guess is the GM bondholders began to stuff their fireplaces with that worthless paper now too.

There you now have it, over 200 years of contract law turned on its head. I never thought I would see that happen in the USA which is nothing more now than a banana republic without the bananas.

and the band played on.

13 posted on 06/10/2009 6:28:43 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame

Sounds like a stealthy way to hand out the equivalent of sub-prime loans for cars, doesn’t it? Think about who would be most likely to benefit from a “clunker” trade-in. Tie that together with the manufacturers now pitching “default forgiveness” for up to six months and you can see where this is headed.


14 posted on 06/10/2009 6:29:59 AM PDT by Charles Martel ("Endeavor to persevere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/chrysler-order-6-9-09.pdf

The SCOTUS vacated the stay because the plaintiff could not prove irreparable harm. They *did not* rule on the legal merits of the case. I suspect Indiana will make another run at this when the sale closes and the “harm” is quantifiable and irreparable.


15 posted on 06/10/2009 6:30:12 AM PDT by IamConservative (I'll keep my money. You keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

Anyone who buys any bonds in US companies, or in fact Treasuries after this is a fool.


16 posted on 06/10/2009 6:36:07 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Well, if I understand correctly, that should pretty much destroy the bond market.


17 posted on 06/10/2009 6:41:11 AM PDT by Sig Sauer P220 (The great object is that every man be armed. - Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

I certainly hope you are right.


18 posted on 06/10/2009 6:41:36 AM PDT by safetysign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: martinidon
“Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chrysler’s autoworkers, accepted shared sacrifice because they recognized their interest was better served keeping Chrysler alive rather than forcing liquidation,” Rep. Gary Peters (R., Mich.) said in a statement, tacitly endorsing the administration’s threats,

Please note the R for Republican after Rep. Peters name.

Not all socialists are democrats as he was tacitly endorsing the administration’s threats.

Politicians like Gary Peters are the reason I don't vote for the party, I vote for CONSERVETIVES.

19 posted on 06/10/2009 7:01:42 AM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

Gary Peters is not a Republican. He’s a Democrat.


20 posted on 06/10/2009 7:04:24 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (We do what we have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

The R was a typo.


21 posted on 06/10/2009 7:05:41 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (We do what we have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

The problem is that once the sale is completed, the case is moot, and there is no remedy available to make them whole again. All of the valuable assets will have been transferred to “New Chrysler”, and all “old Chrysler” will have is debts and liabilities. There will be no assets left to make the plaintiffs whole. And since the case will be moot, the other points will not even be heard by the court.


22 posted on 06/10/2009 7:09:50 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Need4Truth

You bet. My money is now at work in China, Brazil and Australia.


23 posted on 06/10/2009 7:12:03 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

24 posted on 06/10/2009 7:36:52 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
I suspect Indiana will make another run at this when the sale closes and the “harm” is quantifiable and irreparable.

I wondered about that. Can the new company be sued for the misdeeds of the old company?

25 posted on 06/10/2009 7:38:26 AM PDT by NEPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
The R was a typo.

Thanks for the correction. I was about to clean my glasses and say "My bad"

26 posted on 06/10/2009 7:45:58 AM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Dingell attacks pensioners for refusing 'small sacrifice')

So did an "R" from Michigan, sadly. God forbid these idiots should be voted out of office.

27 posted on 06/10/2009 7:58:53 AM PDT by Major Matt Mason (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Oops! So NR mislabeled a "D" as an "R". They should know better.
28 posted on 06/10/2009 8:04:53 AM PDT by Major Matt Mason (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason
Oops! So NR mislabeled a "D" as an "R". They should know better.

It has been since corrected on the web page.
29 posted on 06/10/2009 8:20:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NEPA

I suspect Indiana will make another run at this when the sale closes and the “harm” is quantifiable and irreparable.
I wondered about that. Can the new company be sued for the misdeeds of the old company?”

Possibly- but it would be a hollow victory- all the old Chrysler has is Liabilities.....no Assets.


30 posted on 06/10/2009 11:15:24 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
The SCOTUS vacated the stay because the plaintiff could not prove irreparable harm.

Let me correct this for you.

The SCOTUS gleefully sidestepped the stay because the plaintiff could not prove irreparable harm.


Cowards. The lot of them.

31 posted on 06/10/2009 11:19:42 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Anyone else up for buying bonds in a union company?


32 posted on 06/10/2009 12:03:02 PM PDT by silverleaf ("Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal ( Martin Luther King))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

It’s the HMS Cretins


33 posted on 06/10/2009 1:57:45 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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