Posted on 06/10/2009 5:19:27 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Law: The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to lift a bondholder stay in the Chrysler bankruptcy fails to grasp the value of legality in markets. It strengthens the hand of government but weakens the rule of law.
It's an outrage that undermines the very foundation of why bond markets exist at all.
Three Indiana pension groups did try to stop the feds' free-form bankruptcy at the Supreme Court Tuesday. But their case was inexplicably dismissed, the court saying they hadn't made a sufficient case to rule. That's a shame, because the law is clear: Bondholders' claims must be satisfied first when a company goes belly up.
Some think the Court worried about opening up a can of worms with other investor claims if they gave this one the time of day.
But bankruptcy liquidations have been part of the financial landscape since the 17th century in the Netherlands, where the idea of orderly restructuring came to the fore after the tulip mania of 1637.
Precedent was set from those days. However, it wasn't followed when Chrysler went bankrupt last April.
Instead of paying bondholders first, the cream of Chrysler's assets was skimmed up and handed off to Fiat in a deal brokered by government, its power derived from bailout cash, questionably so.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
Becoming a Middle East bazaar.
Why study law, if whim will get the job done?
What is happening now can only be characterized as head-in-the-sand behavior. I suspect that the courts are afraid to be the ones who activate the trip wire on the biggest constitutional crisis in this country’s history.
The case showed up at SCOTUS in the wrong format and asked for the wrong kind of relief. SCOTUS acted correctly. Having said that, the secured lending business died yesterday...because the lawyers who brought the case picked the wrong path. Theory of the case is important...
This is exactly what is happening
Courts are allowed to seek motions that amend to make corrections and modifications to form of relief.
If what you say is accurate I see no reason why the USSC did not hold a private hearing to advise plaintiffs to withdraw, seek an experienced jurist in consultation and refile ex parte. They can do that, there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.
And rather than dismiss they can simply reschedule the hearing for a later date while issuing a stay on related other proceedings. These types of actions are commonplace.
Has anyone found the text, code and section of the law that was supposedly broken? I haven’t seen it.
It’s easy to believe that Obama would violate any law that stood in his way, but I wonder if he really did in this case. It only takes 4 judges to want to hear a case for it go before the court and if it was a direct violation of the law I assume that at least Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts would want to hear it.
Is this friggin true?
I’ve been looking for these details. Can you direct me, please?
And soon they will not.
It can't be long before the whole sham falls into the septic tank. No bounce. Why would anyone invest in any kind of paper at all? This has given new meaning to the word 'Fiat,' and not the kind that drips oil on your driveway.
Whether or not that would make a difference is a crap shoot. Mark Levin is right, black-robed tyrants (or enablers).
The majority, in Heller, lied about the 1937 SCOTUS case, Miller, in order to maintain the fiction that the 1934 NFA is constitutional. The public is none the wiser.
LOL
I'm waiting for that one myself!!!
I didn’t think they dismissed the case, they simply lifted the stay, saying that the litigants had not proven that the harm they would suffer without a stay was less than the harm that would be suffered with the stay.
O.K. I get your point, BUT, you did not explain why it was the “wrong format” and how it is they asked for the “wrong kind of relief”.??? The legal uneducated want to know.
Under normal proceedings, the petitioner (here, Indiana) would raise the legal issues at the district court level and appeal through the court of appeals and then to SCOTUS. There wasn't enough time to do that (although Indiana could have brought the suit earlier). I suppose the SCOTUS decided not to break with tradition and use the stay to get to the merits. Indiana may still prevail and that will require a trip through the courts. But, the deal will be long done and it is unlikely the US Govt will have to pay because of sovereign immunity. Its a mess. I wish they had granted the stay and looked at the facts, but, the SCOUTUS plays by its own rules and what they did was within their power. Bummer...
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TRO and temporary stays. Procedurally, they should start at the district court and then the court of appeals. The SCOTUS very rarely issues stays because the issue has been examined by the lower courts. Ginsberg's temporary stay was unusual.
The actions you mention, at least in my experience, are more common at the district court and appellate court level. Here, the SCOTUS is locked in the classic separation of powers problem. I think this is also keeping them from hearing the birth certificate cases. If Obama would get out of the picture, the SCOTUS reaction may have been different. Who knows???
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.