Chrysler Fiat Sale Delayed by U.S. Justice Ginsburg

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Jun 8, 2009.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRxvFzweBFuY
    June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Chrysler LLC’s planned asset sale to a group led by Italy’s Fiat SpA was delayed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a request for a longer postponement that might scuttle the deal.

    Moments after her order was issued, Fiat Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in a telephone interview that the company will “never” walk away from the deal. The company previously set a June 15 deadline for completion.

    A federal appeals court in New York last week allowed the sale, while putting its decision on hold until 4 p.m. today to let opponents including Indiana pension funds seek Supreme Court intervention.

    Ginsburg’s one-sentence order today said the bankruptcy court orders allowing the sale “are stayed pending further order” of the Supreme Court. That language leaves open the possibility that the justices might clear the deal to go forward in the next several days.

    Chrysler said in court papers that the sale is necessary to stanch losses of $100 million a day. Chrysler said the sale, which would transfer its Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge brands, would help save 38,500 jobs, plus those of workers at its suppliers.

    The pension funds sought a stay that would last until the full nine-member court decided whether to hear their appeal. The funds said in court papers they would suffer “irreparable harm” should the sale go forward.

    ‘Kill’ the Sale

    Chrysler said the sort of stay sought by the funds “will, in practical effect, kill the Fiat sale and lead to a liquidation.” The Obama administration is supporting the automaker at the Supreme Court.

    The stay will probably be brief, said Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP partner Martin Bienenstock, who has advised General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Financial Corp. on restructuring. “Once the Supreme Court is able to review the certiorari petitions and responses, I doubt the court will maintain the stay,” he said. “Certiorari” refers to the process of seeking Supreme Court review of a case.

    “Pending further information from the Court, we have no comment at this time,” said Lori McTavish, vice president of public relations for Chrysler, in a e-mail.

    The Indiana pension funds hold $42.5 million of $6.9 billion in Chrysler secured loans.

    The Supreme Court case is Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler, 08A1096.
     
  2. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #2
    Hot DAMN!

    Obama and Corp got whomped.

    As in finally the rule of law may trump the rule by intimidation.

    Bond holders are secured debt, they have hundreds of years of case law behind them and thwarting such to reward political lackeys was clearly wrong.

    Obama isn't leading us to socialism, he went straight to fascism.

    Which more applies to what is happening here?

    * An economic system where both industry and business is owned and controlled by the government ..... Socialism.

    * An economic system where industry and business is privately owned, but controlled by the government ..... Fascism.

    * An economic system where industry and business is privately owned an privately controlled. .... Free enterprise.
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    Since when was FIAT an arm of the US government? :confused:

    Or is it just that US car companies can buy competitors throughout the world but the reverse isn't allowed?
     
  5. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #5
    :rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Please, cut these things out...you make yourself seem clueless. Socialism is not just what you defined it as above...go look around Europe.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Yet another ridiculous, hysterical post. Still waiting for the day when you can post in an intelligent, civil manner. I guess I'll be waiting for a long time.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Not to mention that it's funny as heck to listen to him laud the judicial prowess of Justice Ginsberg! :p
     
  8. Sehnsucht macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    #9
    Tell me again why U.S. justices are allowed life terms? :eek:
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    I wonder that as well.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    You guys really don't know the rationale behind the founders' decision to enshrine SCOTUS judges for life? I thought that was standard high school civics fare. :confused:
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #12
    Poor choice of words on my part. I know why it was set up that way, I'm beginning to wonder if it is still a good idea.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Wait, I thought you were a strict constructionist? :confused:
     
  13. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #14
    Obviously you don't know what 'strict constitutionalist' means. :eek:

    It doesn't mean you can't support ammendments to the constitution. It means, unlike the current political leadership, you aren't willing to railroad the constitution and use unconstitutional means to sidestep the parts you don't like. It means you don't use the 'interstate commerce' and 'general welfare' clauses to justify anything you want even though the founders were very clear on 'limited and specifically enumerated powers.'
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    You mean like Bush?

    BTW- that wasn't a definition. Try again. And mac said strict constructionist, BTW. ;)
     
  15. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #16
    It is, and for the exact reason that led you to ask.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    It's definitely a good idea. The public voting on judges would be a disaster. It shouldn't require an explanation, and neither side should be wishing for it to be any different. It's that way to protect us all.
     
  17. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #18
    Lee's arguments with me are always hilarious. Whatever it is, he just says, "was Bush any better?" "How about Bush?" "You mean like Bush?" It's really brilliant commentary. Adds a lot to the conversation.

    It's almost like Obama can do whatever he wants, as long as you can always bring up something Bush did that was worse or relative.

    Especially since I was never a supporter of Bush personally, and was outspoken against many of his policies including the ones discussed here.

    C'mon Lee, if you want to argue the merits of my post, please do so. Don't just drop names and call it good.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Ok, so you want a constitutional amendment to do what? To limit the term of a SCOTUS justice? What kind of term would you prefer? And how do you think that would make things better?
     
  19. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #20
    Actually, I don't want any amendment personally.

    I was simply pointing out the obvious fallacy's in your statement, indicating that anyone who supported the constitution couldn't possibly support an amendment to the constitution, when in fact that's one of the most pro-constitution things you could ever do. The fallacy that you've yet to admit to.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Wow... can't even keep a civil tongue in your head for two seconds. I was asking you about this:

    Why do you "wonder" if it's "still a good idea" to appoint SCUTUS justices to lifetime appointments? And if you don't think it's a good idea to have them be lifetime appointments, what term do you think would be better; and what do you think it would solve to have shorter terms?
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    There was no merit to your post in the first place. And here you go, playing the victim again. You also conveniently ignored the rest of my post.
     

Share This Page