Breaking: SCOTUS stops Chrysler sale
posted at 4:18 pm on June 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Supreme Court, in an order signed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has stopped the sale of Chrysler to Fiat and the bankruptcy plan engineered by the White House. No details are available quite yet on the story, but I will be watching for updates on the wires and blogs.
Ginsburg stopping the sale, though … that’s interesting in and of itself.
Update: “Stayed pending further order,” Ginsburg noted. That could mean a temporary stay, but …
Chrysler has said a delay could scuttle the deal.
A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until 4 p.m. EDT Monday to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene.
Ginsburg issued her order just before 4 p.m., when Chrysler would have been free to complete the sale of most of its assets to Fiat.
She can ask the full court to decide whether to continue the stay or vacate it on her own, but if she was inclined towards the latter, she wouldn’t have issued the stay. And if Ginsburg has a problem with the government intervention here, just wait until Scalia and Thomas get a crack at it.
Update II: AFP reports on the decision:
The move will allow the justices to consider whether to allow a full hearing of the legal issues — a delay which Chrysler and US officials say could cause the plan to collapse.
A group of Indiana pension funds opposed to Chrysler’s sale to Fiat filed the emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to halt the sale.
The pension funds wanted a hearing on alleged violations to due process that damaged their standing in the bankruptcy. The appellate court didn’t want to allow it, but Ginsburg’s decision shows that those claims have enough merit to get heard.
Update III: Chrysler says they only have until June 15 to complete the sale to Fiat, and after that they’ll have to flat-out liquidate. Maybe they should have done better by their senior creditors then, huh? And guess who’s representing them? Thomas Lauria — the lawyer who blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s extortive tactics in the negotiations. You think he’s loving this today?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
So…the SCOTUS now controls the SEC?
MadisonConservative on June 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yessssssss! Boy, I bet bho and team are about to have heads explode.
L
letget on June 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Hmph. Who’d have thought the most liberal SC justice would buck the Obamessiah?
sondiehl on June 8, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Wonders never cease, go Ruth!
msmveritas on June 8, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Breaking: The Republicans have taken control of the NY Senate. Two Dems switched parties.
amerpundit on June 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM
When you’ve lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you’ve lost your America.
Jeff M (Formerly Jeff_McAwesome) on June 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM
“Curiouser and curiouser!”
lobosan5 on June 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Ginsburg under the bus in 3…2…
TheQuestion on June 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM
’twas reported as a stay on FN
Ugly on June 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM
WHAT?????? They control contractual agreements under the “Takings Clause” in the 5th amendment
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM
$800 million?
$800 million? That’s what Chrysler is worth?
Is that why it was too big to fail?
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I’m surprised Ginsburg did it, but my understanding is that the country is divided into areas for emergency appeals like this. I think this came from NY, which goes through her.
Don’t know if they’ll actually put a stop to it, but they must have made a compelling enough point about possible violations of bankruptcy law to cause the SCOTUS to need to take a closer look at the arguments.
cs89 on June 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM
This is definitely Manic Monday for the dems, wow.
msmveritas on June 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The right decision as the government has no authority to meddle in private industry in such a way, and I hope this stay is the beginning of the end to Obama’s Cesear-like power grab of the private sector.
smfoushee on June 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
Yakko77 on June 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM
What a topsy turvey day!
ladyingray on June 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Breaking: The Republicans have taken control of the NY Senate. Two Dems switched parties.
amerpundit on June 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Do you have a link?
txag92 on June 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM
What two Dems switched parties?
jimmy2shoes on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Never thought I would be praising Justce Ginsburg but mercy she looks like an angel right now. Imagine! Standing for her country’s laws against the messiah.
Herb on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I would love to be a fly on the wall wherever Obama and Emanuel are this afternoon.
cs89 on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Here.
MadisonConservative on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Hee, hee.
I remember Frank Herbert’s book “The Dosadi Experiment” which had an official “Bureau of Sabotage” whose job was to keep government from acting too quickly.
Looks like Justice Ruth “Vader” Ginsburg has joined the Department!
NeighborhoodCatLady on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Ginsberg did this? THE most liberal Justice on the SCOTUS?
How bad must this be for Ginsberg of all people to put a halt to this – even if it’s only temporary?
Vic on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Here.
amerpundit on June 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM
txag92 on June 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Here.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/revolt-could-imperil-democratic-control-of-senate/
Paging Rudy Guiliani…
cs89 on June 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM
So all this time Ginsburg was actually a closet racist in the pocket of Big Business.
Or did Cheney “get” to her too? His greasy tentacles are everywhere.
Bishop on June 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Could we actually have a legal system left in this country? Michele O. will not be proud of these developments.
Maybe Nino is getting to his BFF Ruth. She better get a food taster.
Western_Civ on June 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Thanks for the links.
txag92 on June 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM
It’s clear that the whole TARP is un-Constitutional, itself, so this extra foray into the automotive industry is just that much more egregious. This should mark the beginning of the end of TARP. Geithner ought to start kissing goodbye to his $700 billion permanent slush fund.
progressoverpeace on June 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM
How easily we conservatives are fooled. It’s not the government intervention, Ed. It’s that the Supreme Court has been left out of the entire process, and everyone knows SCOTUS trumps POTUS in this oligarchy.
cackcon on June 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Ginsburg is probably trying to prevent BO from self-destructing.
thirteen28 on June 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I bet Patterson didn’t see that one coming.
teke184 on June 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM
The One does not take kindly to people saying “no” to him.
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Obama said contract law was sooo out of style.
UAW is unemployed for another 60 days.
seven on June 8, 2009 at 4:35 PM
True, but I think Ginsburg can trump him by saying “What are you going to do if Souter and I leave at the same time? You can’t even get Sotomayor approved at this rate.”
teke184 on June 8, 2009 at 4:35 PM
But, but, the One is so unflappable!
He’s probably flapping so hard that the FAA will nail him for not filing a flight plan.
There’s not enough popcorn in the world for this.
NeighborhoodCatLady on June 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
How about being a fly on the wall in Rattner’s office?
rob verdi on June 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Obama threw a lamp and Rahmbo’s sitting at the President’s desk, hand flat on table, stabbing in between his 4 fingers increasingly faster and faster saying F*@# everytime he hits where the missing one would be. LOL
Elektra on June 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Great day in America, SCOTUS gives creditors their day in court.
Definite setback for Obama as he called the creditors greedy for wanting their day in court.
:-)
FireBlogger on June 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM
On a more serious note, what happens to Chrysler in the interim? Are they back in bankruptcy? Does the stay block creditors from taking action? Is Fiat’s purchase of Chrysler assets blocked? Do the dealers get to keep their dealerships?
NeighborhoodCatLady on June 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM
It hit me from day one that Obama was telling us He controlled the bankruptcy and the bankruyptcy court did not. This also opens up other claims because the closed dealership suits are “post petition”. filings.
Fiat is already cold and may bail. Liquidation would work. If Pensky could snag Jeep, there is a good Monday.
seven on June 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Excellent point. But are we to equate the lobbyists (read=Big Labor) that benefit from executive manipulation with solicitors filing cases before the court?
Western_Civ on June 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM
And you drew racist out of this story how?????? I suggest you stop wasting time here and read the constitution starting with the 5th amanedment!
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Atta girl Justice Ginsberg, you go girl!!!
Wade on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I bet she did it cus the pension funds were for teachers.
Chudi on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Say what you will about Ginsburg, but my guess is that no one at SCOTUS liked the fact that this is being rammed through the courts as part of a political process. It hurts the legitimacy of the courts as an independent branch.
All nine of the justices will vigorously defend their turf from the other branches, and they are doing just that.
alflauren on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
The alternative is that Ginsberg is giving the administration cover by giving the appearance of propriety to the whole dismal affair. Just saying.
ICBM on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I’m not going to get too excited about this.
The creditors getting their day in court could result in a 5-4 opinion tossing contract law, as we know it, under the bus.
myrenovations on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I kind of feel sorry for that little Portigue water dog. He’s probably getting kicked up and down the halls of the West Wing about now.
FireBlogger on June 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Ginsberg saying “no” to Obama AND NY senators flipping to (R)?!?
Reminds me of March Of the Wooden Soldiers….Christmas?!? In the middle of July?!?!?
(OK, it’s still June, so sue me.)
DrAllecon on June 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM
That sounds like a decent possibility.
The Jeep and the Dodge Truck brands are decent, so those are the kinds of labels that Penske would probably buy up in order to make a full line available from his new company.
(He’s already got a full-size sedan in the Aura and two cross-over SUVs in the Vue and Outlook.)
teke184 on June 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM
It’s a mad mad mad mad mad
worldmonday.Chaz706 on June 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM
If that happened, there’s be no point in ever entering into a contract with anyone in this country, ever again.
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM
This “sale” (ie: money grab) SHOULD be stopped. Just because they steamrolled a bankruptcy court judge and used intimidation tactics doesn’t change the 5th Amendment.
Yes, a bankruptcy court can discharge debts, but they MUST liquidate the assets and distribute them to the debtors in order of standing. What was done to the bondholders was egregious. Worse, they essentially placed the unions (and the government) at the front of the line when it clearly was inappropriate.
It is interesting that Ginsburg intervened. My prediction is SCOTUS takes up the case. This is important, if they do so, AND they rule that Obama’s scheme violates the 5th Amendment, his massive takeover by dictatorial fiat is stopped COLD.
wildcat84 on June 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Wow…Just Wow…
RBG halts the Chrysler sale…
And the NY senate goes RethugliKKKan…
All on the same day…
I guess the apocalypse is imminent…
RocketmanBob on June 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM
The Indiana pension funds in questions were bondholders for Chrysler. These were the Indiana state employees and the state teachers’ retirement fund. In any regular bankruptcy, they should have gotten paid first, but under the gubmint rushed bankruptcy and subsequent sale to Fiat, those funds would be out tens of millions of dollars. That’s a lot of pensioners to p!ss off.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 8, 2009 at 4:44 PM
And you drew racist out of this story how?????? I suggest you stop wasting time here and read the constitution starting with the 5th amanedment!
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Whatever, if you can’t see that Ginsburg obviously has a racist bent toward the President, then you are blind.
As for the Constitution, it needs to be flexible so as to account for the realities of modern civilization, not the outdated concepts of old white guys who lived 200 years ago.
Bishop on June 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Will this affect the GM bankruptcy, or is it too late? Didn’t Obama do the same thing to their secured bondholders?
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Even liberal Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution. What I want to know is, who were the judges in the apellate court who got overturned?
I’d be shocked if SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitrarily giving preference to unsecured creditors. They surely know that contract law is the foundation for commerce, and upsetting that foundation will cause a lot more damage than the bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM.
hawksruleva on June 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM
My dog and cat slept in the same room last night, weird.
kirkill on June 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Hey POTUS, how’s the dissing of Israel working out for you?
Wade on June 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Judicial Fiat…
clorensen on June 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
New look at Ginsburg?
Good for those Hoosiers. The Constitution prohibits the impairment of contract–or something to that effect. This is a fundamental overreach. This is one of those cases that members of SCOTUS live for, regardless of supposed ideology. They are our court of last resort, and if they allow this, the executive branches and Congress can get away with too much.
I’m betting the Obama train is screeching to a halt and is in danger of running off the tracks–at least as far as this overreach is concerned.
BuckeyeSam on June 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
“A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control.”
But, I thought Republicans had lost hispanics for a generation.
CNH_320 on June 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Harry Reid announces Court-packing legislation in 3….2….1…
rockmom on June 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Obama would still control GM and Chrysler, though. He just won’t be able to pay off his union buddies in such a clear and concise manner.
hawksruleva on June 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Obami must be fuming today!
Tech cos enlist Democrat to blast Obama tax plan
http://tinyurl.com/nd76hq
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Sarah Palin goes to New York and the dems change parties. Coincidence?????
s/
portlandon on June 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
On a sarc binge without at tag, hun Bishop?
You know how that confuses some people.
Count to 10 on June 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Are you thinking Genesis 12:3?
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Great news. A supreme court justice is not someone the Big 0 can intimidate and strong arm. Ha Ha Ha!
bopbottle on June 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Well done. I was wondering how you were going to play this one.
myrenovations on June 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I can’t wait to see The Precedent throw a temper tantrum on TV, as he’s sure to do.
Maybe we can finally ship him back home .. wherever in the third world that is. I don’t care where, but he and his leeching Aunt Zetuni have to get the hell out of my country.
progressoverpeace on June 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM
RocketmanBob on June 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM
What’s w/the KKK reference? Don’t be stupid. If you have something constructive or instructive to say, say it. Don’t be a flame-throwing jerkoff. Especially since there is no basis for your accusation. I believe the only former KKK member of Congress, Senator Byrd is a Democrat. Dummb*ss!
JAM on June 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM
AAAHHH so you don’t have an answer how you came to the conclusion she is a racist!!!! Ok got it thanks for playing! Oh and thanks for proving to the whole board who is the real racist! It’s those white guys that gave you the freedom to spout such B*(&)(s)(*)_(t!
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Bah. Our dog and cats used to sleep curled up around each other.
Count to 10 on June 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM
It was SCOTUS that put the brakes on FDR’s power grab under the National Recovery Administration. Maybe Obama and his brownshirts will have be be accountable to someone after all.
Mark30339 on June 8, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Fascinating.
/spockmode
MadisonConservative on June 8, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I was thinking the same thing.
Maybe he’ll release some more CIA memos.
Daggett on June 8, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Shared sacrifice again. I love the fact that lawmakers are now invoking sacrifice, like that’s somehow an American value. America isn’t about sacrifice, it’s about hard work, and the freedom to succeed or fail on your own. All this talk about “shared sacrifice” makes me wanna puke. The other bondholders caved due to FEAR of retribution from the WH, not some highminded sense of fairness. I guess the next thing we know, Congressmen will be asking why some people aren’t giving in to their fear.
hawksruleva on June 8, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Seriously, you aren’t seeing the sarcasm?
Count to 10 on June 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I don’t think you hang around here much…Bishop isn’t a troll and that was meant to be funny.
JAM on June 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM
FAIL
Jamewah on June 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM
First we’ll have to get the warning of the danger of opposing Obama, issued by Gibbs, right?
hawksruleva on June 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM
The UAW is why it was “too big” to fail.
I wonder if Ginsburg issued the stay because the other justices told her they want to hear the case?
AZCoyote on June 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Why not? We’ve got the incarnation of FDR 2.0 with aptitude of Jimmuh Carter as POTUS.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
You don’t need legislation there are no requirements on the amount of Justices on the SC. That’s why FDR tried to get away with court packing.
Size of the Court
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six Justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of Justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.
At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to its fruition, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[7] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of Justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937; his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one additional Justice for each existing Justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President’s actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court.[8] This plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan,” failed in Congress. The Court, however, gradually acquiesced to Roosevelt’s New Deal programs and thereby removed the President’s need to alter it. Within six years eight of the nine justices either retired or passed away, allowing Roosevelt to appoint eight Justices total to the Supreme Court (second only to George Washington) and to promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
This is what happens when SCOTUS justices don’t have empathy.
NeighborhoodCatLady on June 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
You know, I was thinking this morning that we all fall into sarcasm/parody a little too easily. Those aren’t the best tools to help educate newcomers.
But damn they’re fun…
hawksruleva on June 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Then maybe he needs to add that to the end of his post as most people do!
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM
She turned water into wine? Who’s the real messiah here?
BuckeyeSam on June 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I feel a Jesse Jackson rhyme coming on…..
When you cannot legislate, you must litigate!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM
You are trying to school a woman who is just about the most informed commenter on Hot Air.
myrenovations on June 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I think, to some extent, the US was built on the principled refusal to offer sacrifice: if someone tells you you can’t pass unless you let him kill your mother or your wife, you shoot him and be on your way.
Count to 10 on June 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM
That.little.minx. Don’t tease me like this G.
BrideOfRove on June 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Great news! Chrysler should go through the “legal” bankruptcy process, not this contrived unconstitutional Bankruptcy In Name Only (BINO). (Pronounced beano.)
FloatingRock on June 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I’m sorry I forgot my crystal ball today telling me that information.
Oh wait maybe it was suppose to be osmosis that I was suppose to know that information!
xler8bmw on June 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »