Posted on 06/08/2009 10:01:47 AM PDT by thomas16
The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to steer clear of a request from Indiana pension funds to halt the 'sale' of ...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
It’s all up to Anthony Kennedy now.
If he’s drunk the Obamaid, then we’re all screwed.
This is the court that approved of the New London taking of private property, so I am not hopeful that the taking clause will be defended, nor that the banruptcy laws will be upheld.
Heard on a local radio show here in Indy this morning, that the DOJ is calling the lawyer for the bondholders a terrorist.
It’s not up to Kennedy. Ruth B. Ginsburg has this one. She can decide it herself or refer it to the full court. My guess is she will refuse to consider the appeal without comment referring it back to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who will allow the sale to go forward this afternoon.
The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to steer clear of a request from Indiana pension funds to halt the 'sale' of ... Chrysler to Italian carmaker Fiat. Solicitor General Elena Kagan says the Court should not consider an argument from the funds that Chrysler is not a "financial institution" and therefore was – and remains – ineligible to receive Treasury Department TARP money. A decision on a stay from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or the whole Court is expected by 4 p.m.
So Kagan is arguing that Chrysler IS a financial institution? The mind boggles.
THREE EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
I don’t know SCOTUS doesn’t like to be told what to do. I am sure Ginsburg would like to send this away with the famous “Lack of Standing” ruling. I would assume they have all discussed the appeal already.
“no ex post facto” law has to enter somewhere in this Equation.
Judges know the Law, and a lot of judges are watching the Indiana Court today. Peer pressure.
A Tipping point for Constitutional Law ?
Ginsburg would be unwise to bounce this back to the Court of Appeals, since bankruptcy law is very clearly governed by statute, and the White House can’t change it anytime it feels like it.
4 Justices are required for cert, IIHC..I can’t believe the solid four would duck this issue..
It’s not unprecedented for the Attorney General’s office to intervene on the wrong side for political reasons. It happened all the time under clinton. The question is, what will SCOTUS do?
The Court at least had some cover for the eminent domain decision, although they decided wrongly. This time we are talking about sanctity of contracts and the rule of law itself. Also the power of judges and courts to say what the law is, since the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies have essentially made end runs around the second and third branches of government.
Hopefully they will come down on the right side, at least until Obama manages to plant a few more extremists and tilt the balance further left.
Don’t bet the farm on that.
Didn't some reliably conservative Justices vote for that crap?
I'm not hopeful about this either. To me, this whole GM/Chrysler business is patently unconstitutional. But, apparently I'm in the minority.
She can bounce it back now, but the issue will be sure to come up in another guise sooner or later. Too many bondholders have been screwed by the GM and Chrysler deals. SCOTUS needs to decide if contracts have any meaning in Obama’s world.
I thought any SCOTUS justice could poll the court to see if they wanted to take a case up. Why is it up to Ginsburg only?
Seriously..I can't imagine Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia NOT wanting to weigh in on this..
This is just completely beyond outrageous.
God help us.
SCOTUS has to either affirm the current laws with respect to bankruptcy or void them and send them back to the legislature to figure out new ones. I would like to think that they would rule in favor of the legal rights already established.
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.