Skip to comments.Supremes Rebuff Chrysler Creditors (Dingell attacks pensioners for refusing 'small sacrifice')
Posted on 06/10/2009 5:57:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
After weeks of White House threats and media cover-up, Chryslers remaining debt holders got their day before the Supreme Court Tuesday . . . and lost. The decision was no surprise to legal experts who say Chryslers 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 Americas self-appointed Democratic civil libertarians really stand when it comes to the rule of law.
Other stakeholders, including other secured lenders and Chryslers 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 administrations 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 cant 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 Chryslers 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?
The very bases of a Banana Republic.
Where the rule of law is whatever the top tyrant says it is.
Time to take this country back anyway we can.
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
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.
Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land!
It suspends belief.
But that would be mean-spirited negative attack ads, only Democrats are allowed to do that.
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
Investors are watching this too and should be taking appropriate action.
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
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who buys any bonds in US companies, or in fact Treasuries after this is a fool.
Well, if I understand correctly, that should pretty much destroy the bond market.
I certainly hope you are right.
Please note the R for Republican after Rep. Peters name.
Not all socialists are democrats as he was tacitly endorsing the administrations threats.
Politicians like Gary Peters are the reason I don't vote for the party, I vote for CONSERVETIVES.
Gary Peters is not a Republican. He’s a Democrat.
The R was a typo.
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.
You bet. My money is now at work in China, Brazil and Australia.
I wondered about that. Can the new company be sued for the misdeeds of the old company?
Thanks for the correction. I was about to clean my glasses and say "My bad"
So did an "R" from Michigan, sadly. God forbid these idiots should be voted out of office.
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.
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.
Anyone else up for buying bonds in a union company?
It’s the HMS Cretins