DJ

I dont think that is the case here. I honestly believe Ginsberg is providing some cover for Obama. I sincerely doubt seriously the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Sorry I dont trust Obama or Ginsberg either. Never trust a liberal, especially trusting one to do the right thing even if for the wrong reason.

retired military...except I heard that she was circulating it for the rest of the Supreme Court to review. If they decide to quickly hear the whole thing that would be awesome!

I would hope they realize that the alternative is that they will have EXACTLY one job to do:
Stamp "YES!" on everything Obama throws at them!
I don't think the Supremes like that.

PLEASE let this be a continuation of the groundswell pushback for Obama's BLATANT power grab and over-reach.

Purely a political move, here. However disguised it may be, anything to slow down the "yes sir" Congress.

Nothing riles the Democrats more than when the courts rule against them. Mainly because the Dems are so sure of their own righteousness, but also because they know the only way they can advance the most radical aspects of their agenda is through the courts rather than through the legislative proccess.

Nothing like a liberal getting pissed on by a liberal judge.

Wonder if the "One" will try to pack the court, like his hero Franklin Roosevelt tried to do? Be interesting, in the least, to see what happens here. As someone said in a previous post, let the fun and games begin.

It appears "professor" Ginsburg slapped "student" Obamalala's hand. Contracts are covered ,I believe, in the first year of law school. Maybe he was sleeping in class that day also. And the day they discussed the First Amendment and the Second and probably the......

Chrysler received an economic bailout once before in 1979, and that was perfectly legal. So far it hasn't been established by any judge that the executive branch has overstepped it's authority back in 1979 or in 2009 related to either Chrysler bailout. Until a judge rules to the contrary, I'm wisely reserving my judgement on this matter.

"Turf War" ? ??

More like " Smurf War"

Hooson,

You need a judge to tell you when to wipe your ass after you download your brains?

When dont you need a judge?

Nice strawman, Paul.

This isn't about a "bailout", it's about the executive branch crapping on established bankrupcy laws.

hooson as I said in the other thread you are a T.O.O.L.

The 79 Chrysler bailout isn't in ANY way comparable to the current version that has dirty politics written all over it.

Well, back in my day I owned an Indie record store, except it didn't work because my only customers were filthy hippies with no money, so I got a liberal judge to grant me some money from the state. Now I own apartment buildings and shopping centers. And I only know three chords. Watch me burn, you fools!

Paul Hooson:

Chrysler received an economic bailout once before in 1979, and that was perfectly legal.

That bailout was a loan. Plain and simple. Chrysler paid back every dime of the loan, plus interest before the loan was even due. Too bad that there are no more Lee Iacoca's running the auto companies, instead of some Yale idiot that has never held a real job in his life.

Hooson,

This case is about the blatant re-writing of established bankruptcy and contract law.

Chrysler is incorporated in Delaware. In that state, certain investors are guaranteed 100% reimbursement in the case of bankruptcy.

Obie, and his Car Czar, are attempting to subvert the law by giving those investors pennies (+/- 8 cents) on the dollar.

That's what this case is about.

Pay attention please.

Gee Paul, looks like the posters here just handed you your hat. Seems you are trying to compare apples and oranges and someone noticed. Is it possible the SCOTUS decided bankruptcy is a matter for the court system rather than the executive? Wonder what will happen if Obama defies the court? Impeachment!

Actually, it really doesn't mean that much. Check SCOTUSBlog to get some analysis. This isn't "Ginsburg slaps down Obama administration" so much as "Supreme Court needs time to consider appeal."

Then again, maybe Hussein just didn't offer Ginsberg a big enough piece of the "New" Chrysler corp! After all, she is retiring.

I think I keep thinking is Ginsberg wanted the review so she can greenlight the rest of Obama's socialistic policies. I really hope I am wrong. ww

I think its perfectly understandable that a wise white women might have a different 'point of view' compared to a wealthy black man.

Its all about perspective... isnt it?

I suppose resorting to a few childish personal attacks is all that a few have here who have no facts on the side. But the fact of the matter is that both the 1979 and 2009 Chrysler bailouts started out as bailouts, however in 2009 bankruptcy protection administered by a Federal bankruptcy court has become necessary because Chrysler's problems are much worst this year, and now a few creditors as well as pension funds are unhappy at the consequences of that Federal bankruptcy action. So far no judge or court has ruled that the White House has overstepped any executive branch authority so far, so I feel that it's jumping to conclusions for some to assume that before any ruling.

The fact of the matter is that Chrysler is in such bad financial condition this time around that unless Fiat can buy in or some major debt relief occurs within days, the company will likely collapse and go out of business by the middle of this month. This stay order by Justice Ginsburg blocking the sale to Fiat on behalf of the lawyers for three pension funds risks much more than just $5 billion dollars of the value of their investments, but their entire larger pension investments should Chrysler fall apart an collapse.

One thing is for certain, without any help from the Obama White House, Chrysler would be gone now, and all the pension funds and stock investment value wiped out along with the credit that so many companies gave to Chrysler. With the Federal bankruptcy proceedings, at least everyone will have something left. Maybe the solution some want to see here is lost pension funds, lost investment, etc., and a lost American icon corporation.

Paul H said: "With the Federal bankruptcy proceedings, at least everyone will have something left."

That, Paul, is the crux of the matter. Secured lenders expect, under the law as it exists, that they will be paid to the fullest extent possible. That is why they are called secured lenders. Stockholders, who chose not to be secured for higher potential returns, stand to lose all if the liquidation (or bankruptcy proceedings) does not provide funds beyond the claims of senior creditors. There is nothing to say that in a true bankruptcy Chrysler would not still be making cars and providing jobs; the company might well be better off and be more attractive to a Fiat/Penske/other were it able to shed certain classes of debt and equity.
That's what the law is. The question is can the executive branch unilaterally (or in agreement with junior creditors) impose a plan of reorganization that diminishes the rights of senior creditors.
And, Paul, you are still mixing fruit. The 1979 Chrysler deal was specific in its language for bridge and longer term loans. There is no provision in the existing TARP legislation for using funds for automobile companies.
PS I am a lifelong buyer of Chrysler products (mainly trucks and jeeps) and I was against the '79 bailout and against this one.

Hello GDB, at least some good news for Chrysler today was a statement from Fiat that they will not pull out of the deal by the Monday deadline, if the Supreme Court takes a few days to decide on this sale issue.

Since 1926, Chrysler has always been an important military contractor building tanks and other weapons, so unless some here want to see our military suffer, the 1979 and 2009 bailouts were both good attempts by our government to maintain a network of strong defense contractors, unless some here would rather see China building our tanks or other weapons needed to fight wars. Chrysler has a new generation of Hummer-style vehicles in planning as well right now. The U.S. military has a huge interest in seeing Chrysler survive.

Paul H said:
This stay order by Justice Ginsburg blocking the sale to Fiat on behalf of the lawyers for three pension funds risks much more than just $5 billion dollars of the value of their investments, but their entire larger pension investments should Chrysler fall apart an collapse.

On behalf of three lawyers? really??
What about the people that have actually invested in those pension funds?

Paul, You seem very determiined to mis-represent whats going on here. First with strawman about whether or not the bail out itself is constitutional, and now by suggesting that the scotus stopped the sale at the behest of three EEEE-vil lawyers.

Is this behavior what we can expect from the rest of your posts on this subject?

So Paul, You are a product of pre-welfare Government bail-outs?

More power to You.

"Hooson"
How do you like your Prius?

I've never received any government bailout with any business I've ever owned, and I'd sooner be dead than not drive my Jeep, Oldsmobile, or motorbikes. The wrong facts just seem to abound around here, and not just about Chrysler either.

Maybe the old gal is not happy with the new 'girlfriend' on the bench - an Affirmative Action dolt who makes all female jurists look stupid.

Just one more thought... perhaps Ginsburgh reads the Israeli press and they despise the TOTUS.

Paul,

Chrysler's tank business was sold to General Dynamics in 1979 and its other military subsidiaries were sold, mostly to Ratheon, by 1994. (There might be some black programs, I admit.) The Jeep Rescue design has been available since about 2004 and, it seems, is more directed towards remote area EMS.

The point is that Chrysler's military business has not been a part of the company's automotive equation for some time. No justification for military considerations in keeping Chrysler automotive viable.

Jerusalem post:

Obama calls for internment of west bank settlers.

date: 2011

Paul, you keep pointing fingers all over the place saying others are misleading. Look in the mirror dude. It is you, not we, who are misled. On the face of it, how do you justify giving any of Chrysler or GM to the UAW? Quality problems are not engineered in to a new vehicle, they are built in by the people who assemble the cars and trucks. You are in favor of rewarding those who caused the failure? Where are you from? If I ever visit where you are from I want to be sure not to drink the water. Who ever made you koolaid used a tainted source.

Hes from the UAW Zelsdorf.

Unthinking
Anal
Worker

914, thanks, that explains it. I have been reading what he posts from time to time. He always seems to be on the wrong side of things. The UAW explaination covers it. Thanks again. I know he will make an attempt at a intelligent response however that is not possible.

Paul Buffoon

" Maybe the solution some want to see here is lost pension funds, lost investment, etc., and a lost American icon corporation.
"

That isnt the solution we want but that is what is going to happen sooner or later. The only question is how much more taxpayer dollars will go down into the UAW hole before it does happen.

BTW Buffon

Ref the 79 and 2009 bailouts.

a. Did the 79 bailout use money which was appopriated for other things (2009 used TARP funds)? Answer - NO.

b. Did the 79 bailout usurp bankruptcy laws and shaft secured bond holders? - answer NO

c. Did the 79 bailout give twice as much stake in a company to the UAW for half the invested money as secured investors ? Answer - NO.

d. Did the 79 bailout have a hand picked commission from the President closing dealerships via partisian methods to pay back political favors? Answer - No.

e. Was the 79 bailout used to repay political favors to the President ? Answer - No.

In other words you are trying to say two things look like apples, taste like apples, smell like apples and have the DNA of apples, where as in reality you have a rotten apple in one hand (79 bailout) and a pile of shit in the other hand (2009 bailout).

"In other words you are trying to say two things look like apples"

should read

"In other words you are trying to say two things which you think look like apples"