Obama --the Constitutional Scholar believes it is. In addition he believes that no court including the USSC has the authority to decide the issue.

So does that mean Obama is right? Well, if he is, the business contracts of this country are in jeopardy. In bankruptcy cases, the bond holders are always given preference as the company liquidates. The bond holders are generally paid in full if the assets are sold at a price sufficient to cover those debts.

Obama and his TARP laws have violated business practices and the constitution by interfering in contract law.

The USSC will decide to hear case or not hear it by 4 PM ET. If they do not hear the case, business investment6 will move overseas because the administration makes up the rules as he sees fit.

But Conservatives have been saying that much for years. Republicans believe in rule of law and Democrats m make the laws to suit themselves. They pack the court with ideologues rather than legal scholars.

Well, it seems Justice Ginsburg wanted some more time to think about it, or maybe she wanted to consult the other justices - she issued a last-minute order that the sale were "stayed pending further order" by her or the Court.


I haven't thought much about it, but I don't see what's unconstitutional or otherwise illegal about the sale. Also, I'm somewhat puzzled as to how the plaintiffs can be confident that liquidating the company would be better for them than going through with this sale.

There's a PDF file that addresses the legal issues at this site.

http://www.freedomworks.org/tar

Is the Chrysler deal part of TARP?

I thought TARP was created to deal with toxic assets-- the rotten derivatives banks sold around the world.

*****
You learn to know a pilot in a storm.
-Seneca

As I understand it, all of the stimulus bill and takeovers are a part of the suit.

The State of Indiana is suing to stop the Chrysler sale. Separate suits are being considered to stop the Tarp funds. A lot opf good thaat will do since they don't know where the money is.

Here's a link that tell Indiana is filing a suit for usiong TARP money as auto bailout.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=490961111011100

Nice to know that the supremes will include an Obama appointee when they review the constitutionality of a Bush initiative.


Didja get the bit today where the Supremes ruled only 5 to 4 that massive campaign contributions to a judge give at the least enough of an impression that they bought the decision, that the judge must recuse themselves?

Notice, by reading the story below, that it was the far right judges who thought it was ok to buy justice if you could afford to.

Supreme Court weighs in on campaign contributions, judicial bias
By MICHAEL DOYLE
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier to force elected judges off cases if they have accepted big campaign contributions.

In a closely watched case from West Virginia, the court ruled that "significant" campaign contributions or other electoral assistance pose a risk of "actual bias." The ruling could trigger more demands for judges in 39 states with elected judges, including California, Texas, and Washington, to recuse themselves from cases in which their campaign contributions could create conflicts.

"There is a serious risk of actual bias ... when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Kennedy said that the ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. resulted from "extraordinary" circumstances that won't often be repeated. The case involved a coal company executive's spending $3 million to help elect West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin, who later voted to reverse a $50 million judgment against the company.

The money spent by Massey President Don Blankenship was more than three times the total amount spent by all of Benjamin's other supporters combined. Benjamin nonetheless declined to recuse himself from the case.

"Though not a bribe or criminal influence, Justice Benjamin would nevertheless feel a debt of gratitude to Blankenship for his extraordinary efforts to get him elected," Kennedy wrote.

The four conservative dissenters, though, warned that a flood of recusal motions and judicial challenges will result from the decision.

"This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be," wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

Roberts enumerated 40 questions that he contends are now raised by the court's decision. For instance: How big a contribution is too big? Does it matter how much money is at stake in the underlying case?

The questions could become particularly pointed this year and next, as state supreme court candidates will be running for election in states including Pennsylvania, Idaho and Kentucky. In some states, judicial candidates run against one another. In other states, supreme court candidates periodically face retention elections.

Next year, for instance, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George is scheduled to face a retention election. In his 1998 retention election, anti-abortion groups financed an unsuccessful campaign against him because of his rulings.

In many counties, superior court judges, too, run for election.

"This is extremely significant," Adam Skaggs, a counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, said of the ruling. "It's a strong signal to the courts that money should not be used to influence justice."

Skaggs predicted that states will draft new rules for judicial recusals. States, for instance, could set contribution amounts that should trigger recusals.

State supreme court candidates reported raising $29 million last year, according to the group Justice at Stake. Third-party groups, often corporations with business before the courts, spent millions of additional dollars on advertising and other efforts.

Kennedy, writing for justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, stressed that "not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal."

Kennedy focused on the "contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election and the apparent effect such contributions had on the outcome of the election."

Separately, the court declined to hear a challenge to the military's policy that bars gays from serving openly and ruled unanimously that the Iraqi government can't be sued in U.S. courts for the actions of Saddam Hussein's regime.


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Thank you, J2. We have known all along that legal scholarship was not a priority of the liberal courts. It's pack the court and enslave the people.

Learned in the Law is the standard for appointment. Are you pretending that the Senate is derelict in its duty? remember that the Judge in question has been confirmed by the Senate twice, once after being nominated by Bush and then again after being promoted by Clinton, while the Republicans had the Senate. Potese, potese, potese. You know nothing. You are as great an empty head as ever I have encountered.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Learned in the Law is the standard for appointment. Are you pretending that the Senate is derelict in its duty? remember that the Judge in question has been confirmed by the Senate twice, once after being nominated by Bush and then again after being promoted by Clinton, while the Republicans had the Senate. Potese, potese, potese. You know nothing. You are as great an empty head as ever I have encountered.


I know more than you think I do. Two words: Judge Bork