It fits here quite well... BO, the used car salesman.
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.
http://www.survivalseedbank.com/
Hubby doesn’t know yet but his whiskey is up for grabs when the SHTF.
Buy the seeds. Seal them in a container and freeze (do NOT use a frost freeze unit) until needed
OR
Buy heirlooms off the shelf at your local stores an do the same.
USE a dessicant.
By the way, for the purpose of rigging the bid, the sheriff paid his buddy the assessor $10M to value the house at $2B.
But he valued it at $30B when he lent the maid the money.
(This is one of the points the USSC thought was not worthy of consideration, even though it violates about 30 laws).
Okay (didn’t rule) but can they bring the action BACK for ANOTHER ruling? Seeings how someone said above, they needed to TRY harder?
Beck turned me in to a prepper about a year ago. It's a pain, but I feel much more confident now than I did. The latter-days recommend a one-year supply of food, etc. I don't have the space or funds for that. I'm set for 60 days though.
I'll have to check again. The survival seed bank is where they wanted 220 or so. I must have misunderstood something. Thanks for the link. I definitely want a good supply of non-hybrids.
“Heirloom” is the same as non-hybrid, I take it (meaning that when the plants grow, you can harvest the seeds and plant them and they become self-perpetuating)?
Thanks for the link.
Your welcome.
I’m going to cut-and paste a post from a lawyer from SCOTUS Blog (and thereby violate his intellectual property rights), who makes a few good points, and also seems to think that there’s a chance that the Chrysler case is not moot, i.e., that further challenges to the sale are possible.
And then I’ll go, because this is really very depressing.
________________
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-whats-next-on-bailout-law/#more-9848
Commentary: What’s next on “bailout” law?
In what may have been an excess of exuberance, the White House issued a statement about the Chrysler deal Tuesday night. Attributed to an unnamed White House official, it included this assertion: “We are gratified that not a single court that reviewed this matter, including the U.S. Supreme Court, found any fault whatsoever with the handling of this matter by either Chrysler or the U.S. Government….” There are some problems with that, and they are not mere legal technicalities.
The state of what might be called “bailout” law has not been reviewed at all by the Supreme Court, except at a somewhat speculative level of whether there was a chance the Court would rule against the deal if it did rule on the merits. It was not convinced, at this stage, that it would do so if that time came.
Fundamental constitutional issues surround the use of federal funds in the Chrysler bailout, as do a host of questions about using the bankruptcy laws as they were in this case. They were raised in the papers filed at the Court this week, but they were not answered in any final way.
The White House was right, it seems, about the lower courts. A federal bankruptcy judge in New York City found no “fault,” with Chrysler or the U.S. Treasury, and apparently the same was true of three judges of the Second Circuit Court (although they have not yet issued an opinion to say just exactly they had found beyond a generalized agreement with the bankruptcy judge).
But the Supreme Court did not do that. It did not rule on “fault” because that would involve “the merits of the underlying legal issues” and the Tuesday order explicitly denied reaching the merits.
Whether the Court will now do so, at any point, depends on a few things.
First, it depends on whether it will agree to hear the formal appeals that already have begun to be filed with the Justices to contest the bankruptcy court’s approval and the Second Circuit’s approval of the Chrysler deal. Those are and will be separate from the applications for delay that have now been denied. One such appeal was filed Tuesday: Center for Auto Safety, et al., v. Chrysler LLC, et al. (docket 08-1513). The Court did not signal on Tuesday night that it would not hear that case, or others, if others are now filed.
Second, it depends upon whether, at least as to the Chryler deal, the Court in the future would say that the challenges are dead letters (in a legal sense, “moot”) because the deal will soon — as early as tomorrow — become a fait accompli. There are ways around the “mootness” problem, but they are not really dependable. (If a General Motors rescue is crafted along the same lines as the Chrysler deal, Tuesday’s order was no guarantee either way on how the Court might react to any legal protests. The order said the Justices were dealing with “this case alone.”)
Third, it depends on whether anyone who objects to the Chrysler deal, or another “bailout,” will be able to show that their interests would be genuinely harmed by the transaction, so they could sue. There was an active dispute in the legal papers as to whether some of the challengers did have “standing” to sue. That, too, is a legal issue that the Court did not address.
And, fourth, it depends on whether lower courts start issuing conflicting rulings on the issues like those raised in the Chrysler rescue. If that occurs, it would increase the chances that the Court would allow itself to get involved in the future. It might also be more inclined to get involved if the current crisis atmosphere eases somewhat in the near future; the Court does not lack institutional self-confidence, but it may well experience some reluctance to second-guess the Executive Branch’s crisis management while the crisis is still present.
“Hubby doesn’t know yet but his whiskey is up for grabs when the SHTF.”
That is harsh.
The fact that the first paragraph said the SC was not ruling on the underlying issues, gives hope that change can come.
The SC has tried to dress up its unlawful ruling as process. As is so often the case, process in this instance is substance. The relevant harm is to the bondholders who are clearly not getting what they are due under the Bankruptcy Code and their Constitutional right to have their contracts enforced is being ignored.
My wife owned a Fiat once. Not much of a car. I hope that people refuse to buy cars from GM and Chrysler. I bought a Ford 2 months ago, and looked carefully at the Hyundai’s and KIA’s. Very good value, although the Ford Escape that I got my wife is better than the Tucson, Sportage, Sorrento, etc. -— for now.
There is no law but the Law of Obama, and the USSC is his prophet!
Right?
Great info.
The way this admin is working, there won’t be any “intellectual property rights” in a year or so.
Yeah, it is harsh....maybe I’ll buy a few more bottles just for him. ;)
LOL! ;)
The SCOTUS should have granted a temporary stay to allow a hearing on the merits without the bondholders’ rights being gutted. I assume that this is a 363 sale and that the assets will be sold free and clear of all liens, claims, and others interests. The bondholders will have no basis for an action against those assets.
These plaintiffs didn’t agree to the unlawful Obama sub rosa plan, and they have a right under the Bankruptcy Code and the Constitution to receive payment in full before anyone else gets anything - especially the unions.
You must have read a different post. Why are you responding to me?
> The entire government is corrupt. Both parties, all branches.
>It’s going to get ugly and it’s inevitable.
I tend to agree.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dv698tm_25c7b35cc9
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dv698tm_22dr6x3nfb
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Bloomber is reporting the sale is set for tomorrow.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ar..qk_HU_Wk
I responded to your post # 98
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.