USSC would not have issued a stay/hold if they didnt intend to sit and rule on the constitutionality of the whole deal.
This is a triumph, also, for independent chrysler dealers, and possible conservatives targeted for closing.
This also helps the rule of law and bankruptcy laws RE: Secured creditors in the GM bankruptcy.
On this news...Market went from -60 to +2 on the DJIA.
CNBC just hosted IN state treasurer.
Don't go counting your chickens.
Take that, and that, and that, and THAT!! (sounds of Zero’s floppy ears getting boxed by Buzzy Ginsburg)
Solicitor General Kagan argued that the Supreme Court didn't have authority to rule on this case. I wouldn't be surprised that the USSC took the case just to rule that they do have authority over it no matter which way they rule.
It’s a temporary stay that gives Ginsburg and the Court time to consider the matter further . I wouldn’t read too much into this. The 2nd Circuit set the deadline last Friday and Ginsburg has had about one day to consider all the issues raised and to read the various briefs which is hardly enough time, so a stay is appropriate
I don't think they are going to address the "constitutional" issues. Instead they are going to rule on whether the bankruptcy of Chrysler and the sale to Fiat is legal under the bankruptcy laws of the United States.
If it were a "constitutional" issue, I don't think Ginsberg would have issued a stay, as I'm not really sure she's ever read the thing. But there are a lot of non-constitutional issues that the Supreme Court hears every year and as a general rule nearly all the justices are pretty strict in their interpretation of statutory rules.
On constitutional issues, the Justices tend to be esoteric and often ignore the meanings of the words, but on statutory interpretation, they are all pretty hard lined.
I think this turkey is dead.
Even though she’s a lefty, there’s something fitting about an old lady with cancer sticking it to Ostammer and his henchmen.