Althouse: The Supreme Court won't hear the Chrysler case.

June 9, 2009

The Supreme Court won't hear the Chrysler case.

Carry on.

63 comments:

BJM said...: The Italians must be laughing their asses off in Turin.

Obama obviously has top men working on this deal; $40B in assets with no money down or financial DD.; 6/9/09, 7:58 PM
Mr. Forward said...: I'm Changing My Name to Chrysler
by Tom Paxton

Oh the price of gold is rising out of sight
And the dollar is in sorry shape tonight
What the dollar used to get us
Now won't buy a head of lettuce
No the economic forecast isn't right
But amidst the clouds I spot a shining ray

I can even glimpse a new and better way
And I've demised a plan of action
Worked it down to the last fraction
And I'm going into action here today

CHORUS:
I am changing my name to Chrysler
I am going down to Washington D.C.
I will tell some power broker
What they did for Iacocca
Will be perfectly acceptable to me
I am changing my name to Chrysler
I am headed for that great receiving line
So when they hand a million grand out
I'll be standing with my hand out
Yes sire I'll get mine

When my creditors are screaming for their dough
I'll be proud to tell them all where they can all go
They won't have to scream and holler
They'll be paid to the last dollar
Where the endless streams of money seem to flow
I'll be glad to tell them what they can do
It's a matter of a simple form or two
It's not just renumeration it's a liberal education
Ain't you kind of glad that I'm in debt to you

CHORUS

Since the first amphibians crawled out of the slime
We've been struggling in an unrelenting climb
We were hardly up and walking before money started talking
And it's sad that failure is an awful crime
Well it's been that way for a millenium or two
But now it seems that there's a different point of view
If you're a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic
Down to congress there's a safety net for you

CHORUS

©1980 Accabonac Music (ASCAP); 6/9/09, 8:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Supreme Court declared victory and pulled out of this fight for property rights.; 6/9/09, 8:12 PM
mccullough said...: The Supreme Court is about to go on vacation.

They are not going to do any more work they don't have to do. Especially Souter, who is retiring.

The Indiana pension plans are out $13 million, plus legal fees.

Elections have consequences. If people don't like this manuever by the administration, then don't buy a Chrysler car (or a GM car).

Obama is who we thought he was. And we let him off the hook.; 6/9/09, 8:13 PM
blake said...: Well, they could have heard it.

But they were already in their pajamas.; 6/9/09, 8:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Earlier today, on the previous thread...although my comment has disappeared, I asked if anybody wanted to wager if this would go through...and had no takers.

This is why.; 6/9/09, 8:27 PM
Jeremy said...: The wingnuts and Ann go from whining about Obama...to whining about the Supreme Court.

Equal whiining.

And people say you have no loyalty.

Hah!!; 6/9/09, 8:30 PM
Zach said...: To repeat an earlier comment of mine, it's noteworthy how much the Administration's case is strengthened by the existence of a deadline. John Von Neumann used the example of throwing out the steering wheel before a game of chicken -- you can win by being stupid if you publicly eliminate the possibility of doing something smart.

How exactly do you get a June 15 deadline? All of the money is coming from the Government. Fiat is providing access to technology -- where's the time pressure in that?; 6/9/09, 8:53 PM
Jeremy said...: Zach - Are you saying Chrysler and others weren't give enough "time" to get their shit together??

You think Toyota and others were just able to "sneak" up on them?

Really???; 6/9/09, 9:05 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Good for Justice Ginsburg in not handling a case of this political importance single handedly.

Good for the conservatives on the bench for showing judicial restraint and deferring to the Executive since no irreparable harm was proven, which is part of the standard.

I would say that neither Ginsburg nor the 5 conservatives on the bench acted as the cartoon versions of them would supposedly have.; 6/9/09, 9:07 PM
Joe said...: Zach, there was no deadline.; 6/9/09, 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Late to arrive at the earlier Chrysler thread so will post here instead.

Chrysler doesn't build crappy cars, at least in my experience. I've got a '94 truck and an '03 car that were bought new and are still doing fine. They're not the best, but I don't need the "best". I've seen much worse from both Ford and GM...and I consider myself a 'Ford guy'. But Chrysler vehicles can get the job done and are sometimes better than the Ford/GM/foreign alternatives.

There is, however, one very good reason to boycott both GM and Chrysler. The remaining GM and Chrysler dealers are heavily slanted toward Obama/democrat contributors. The highly selective approach to dealership closings eliminated many or most dealerships run by Republican backers while dem supporters claimed the spoils.

This stinks and is a reason why I'll by Ford or foreign before GM/Chrysler in the future. Consider where your money will be going people. Had they been even handed in the dealer closings, they'd still be on my 'possible' list.
Dud; 6/9/09, 9:15 PM
Zach said...: Zach - Are you saying Chrysler and others weren't give enough "time" to get their shit together??

Not at all, in the sense of having a company slowly decline over several decades.

However, the time to ratify the bankruptcy plan -- essentially identical to the pre-bankruptcy plan -- was artificially limited by setting up June 15 as a deadline. That means that any court choosing to review the case breaks the deadline. If the deadline was September 15, for example, you could give the dissenters their day in court. By choosing an impossible deadline, you freeze your opponents out.; 6/9/09, 9:17 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "If the deadline was September 15, for example, you could give the dissenters their day in court."

But the standard for SCOTUS is that there would be irreparable harm in them not permanently staying the deal.

They did not find that standard had been persuasively argued.; 6/9/09, 9:37 PM
MadisonMan said...: The remaining GM and Chrysler dealers are heavily slanted toward Obama/democrat contributors. The highly selective approach to dealership closings eliminated many or most dealerships run by Republican backers while dem supporters claimed the spoils.

I see this written here and elsewhere, and I have to ask: Is this really true?

I own a Toyota. Love it. My first car was a Chevy, though, an '82 Cavalier. My parents were Dodge people. Mom's mom was a Studebaker devotee.; 6/9/09, 9:46 PM
Henry said...: My guess is that Supreme Court Justices don't know a whole lot about running a car company either.

And they're smart enough to know that. Let the train wreck continue.

In a previous thread...although my comment has disappeared...I said to pick Mine That Bird in the Kentucky Derby, but I had no takers.; 6/9/09, 9:51 PM
Zach said...: But the standard for SCOTUS is that there would be irreparable harm in them not permanently staying the deal.

There would be no need of a stay if the issue were not to be made moot by the sale closing on Monday.

The existence of a deadline has frozen the dissenters out at every stage of the process. The "bidding process" gave potential bidders two weeks to put a multi-billion dollar deal together. The lower court gave the dissenters one week to make a case. The Supreme Court declines to give a stay. Without the June 15 deadline, this case would be in the early stages of bankruptcy.; 6/9/09, 9:52 PM
Issob Morocco said...: Yes carry on. Let's pour some more good money after bad, prolong the inevitable demise of Chrysler. My guess is it will be kept around thru fall of 2012 to try and keep the UAW placated.

Expect their sales to head south and not look back.

Fiat, now there is an inspiring auto company. Anyone know of a dealer in America? No? Not surprising as they don't have a presence here. But they do have a manufacturing agreement with North Korea and Pyeonghwa Motors.

Zoom! Zoom! Zoom! Kim Jong Il now has a tie to American industry and American Gov't. Just like Obama wistfully dreams of.

Gosh that Obama is the smartest more than human being ever!!!; 6/9/09, 9:55 PM
Zach said...: From the petition:

The Debtors had the bankruptcy court set bidding procedures that required
parties interested in purchasing the assets of Chrysler to submit final and binding
bids, with no financial or due diligence contingency, in less than two weeks. JA-
1613, 88:7-12, JA-1633, 169:1-7, JA-1638, 189:14-16, JA-1644, 210:8-14 (Hearing
Testimony). Not only that, but bids had to include the same terms imposed by
Treasury on Fiat and Chrysler, though Debtors admitted that those terms did not
benefit the estate. JA-1636, 178:5-9, JA-1636, 179:10-180:13, JA-1637, 183:10-19,
JA-1638, 188:8-15 (Hearing Testimony). Debtors also admitted that the bidding
procedures were not likely to produce bids for such a large complicated transaction
in such a short period of time. JA-1615, 97:12-22, JA-1634-35, 171:21-174:4, JA-
1638-39, 189:23-190:1 (Hearing Testimony).

The Indiana Pensioners (and other
objecting creditors) then had only seven days to conduct discovery and go to trial on the section Sale Motion.; 6/9/09, 9:55 PM
TituswantstomeetUthisweekend said...: Are you sure you aren't going to be in Madison this entire weekend?

I am flying there tomorrow. I always have anxiety flying home.

What is the family going to want to do? Will it be too long? Will I be bored? Will my dad be grouchy?

What happened to Tank Man?; 6/9/09, 10:01 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "There would be no need of a stay"

The stay harmed nothing and allowed Ginsburg to bring the rest of the court in. In other words, the stay harmed nothing and had benefits.; 6/9/09, 10:10 PM
Meade said...: Wow. So he really is God.; 6/9/09, 10:15 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Oh, Titus, you might have stood me up again anyway. But no, this weekend is not happening.; 6/9/09, 10:23 PM
Palladian said...: If, like me, you're looking for a way to make "Jeremy's" hundreds of comments tolerable, do what I do! Try to imagine him reading them aloud.; 6/9/09, 10:28 PM
Jeremy said...: Zach - "However, the time to ratify the bankruptcy plan -- essentially identical to the pre-bankruptcy plan -- was artificially limited by setting up June 15 as a deadline."

Oh, please.

Each and every one of the manufacturers had plenty of time to get it together.

They failed to do so and Obmama was stuck with their mess.

If any of them had provided reasonable ideas or solutions the government would never have stepped in.

This is just another canard put forth to justify the whining about government controls.

The American auto industry created their own problems.; 6/9/09, 10:35 PM
John Stodder said...: Who could have guessed that events would evolve to a point where the 100 percent red-blooded American position is to buy a foreign car? Well, Ford gets a pass. I can't tell if Ford is in the catbird seat right now, or the last cavalryman?; 6/9/09, 10:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Issob Morocco said..."My guess is it will be kept around thru fall of 2012 to try and keep the UAW placated."

And it's only an uninformed and thoroughly uneducated "guess."

People just as uninformed as yourself said the same thing when we bailed Chrysler out years ago.

Quit whining and try to be more positive about our President and our country.

It's disgusting listening to you and others bitch about everything he and the administration do.

Oh, and remember that he didn't create this mess...he inherited it.; 6/9/09, 10:41 PM
John Stodder said...: There is, however, one very good reason to boycott both GM and Chrysler. The remaining GM and Chrysler dealers are heavily slanted toward Obama/democrat contributors. The highly selective approach to dealership closings eliminated many or most dealerships run by Republican backers while dem supporters claimed the spoils...

How many new car dealers do you think are Democrats? 5 percent? 10 percent? It's not the profile of the kind of profession Democrats usually get into. I think it would be hard to close a bunch of dealerships and not have a disproportionate impact on registered Republicans.

I wouldn't be surprised if a cordon sanitaire was put up around what few Dem dealers were out there, and I suppose that's unfair if true.; 6/9/09, 10:45 PM
Meade said...: "Oh, and remember that he didn't create this mess...he inherited it."; 6/9/09, 10:55 PM
Crimso said...: "People just as uninformed as yourself said the same thing when we bailed Chrysler out years ago."

How many times will Chrysler go through rehab on the taxpayers' dime before even you will admit that some addicts simply can't or won't recover?

If I were in charge of investing for pension funds, I would seriously consider puting the money in places where the rule of law is a little more dependable. Like maybe Zimbabwe or Somalia. So sorry for all you suckers (including a number of my relatives) in Indiana (except those in the UAW, who are a different sort of sucker entirely). Try real, real hard to remember this the next time you go to the voting booth (and since the Dems in 2010 and 2012 will STILL be running against Bush, remember that he inherited this mess just as much as Obama did; he just didn't pull a Chavez/Mugabe in order to "fix" it).; 6/9/09, 11:02 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "Each and every one of the manufacturers had plenty of time to get it together."

So did their unions.

Yet you don't seem as keen to them getting screwed.

Why not be an equal opportunity screw-wanter?; 6/9/09, 11:12 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "It's disgusting listening to you and others bitch about everything he and the administration do."

Shall we go back and count your positive to negative comment ratio back when Bush was President?

Seriously- no one takes you seriously. Because you don't make serious points. Seriously.; 6/9/09, 11:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Meade - You provide a YouTube presentation to bash Obama...by who?; 6/9/09, 11:29 PM
EKatz said...: Meade, thanks for providing the link to the 'penny visualization' video.

For those interested, go to the guy's youtube channel to find out who he is.

http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies

He also provides a link to his website, where he writes where he got his numbers from:

http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/; 6/9/09, 11:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Meade - So, after five months of the Obama administration taking office, and after seeing what the administration inherited from Bush...you base your economic beliefs on a right wing blogger:

"As for me (this is an “About” page, after all), I’m an exceptionally unimportant person. I have a very normal job in a very normal city. I’m not looking for fame or a fight. I just know that we live in a world filled with numbers and I want to help people understand what those numbers mean."

Political Math is written by an individual with far too much free time on his hands. This blog is primarily a suppliment (spelling) to the YouTube channel 10000Pennies, which shows data visualizations on political topics.

And you've cross-referenced this internet blogger's opinions, calculations and conclusions with the economists throughout the world?

I don't think so.

I think you just want to belief what you already believe and want to be so...which is not surprising here.

You're just another bitching and whining wingnut who wants our President to fail.

It's un-American and disgusting.; 6/9/09, 11:50 PM
Palladian said...: "Political Math is written by an individual with far too much free time on his hands."

lol.

Says Gene in his 382nd comment of the day on Althouse, a blog he hates.; 6/9/09, 11:53 PM
Jeremy said...: Meade - Can you provide the bio and credentials of your economic guru?; 6/9/09, 11:55 PM
Jason said...: Quit whining and try to be more positive about our President and our country.

It's disgusting listening to you and others bitch about everything he and the administration do.

Well, now there's a rat calling a fox a 'long-nosed varmint!"

I swear, Jeremy... if you didn't exist, conservatives would have to invent you to serve as a strawman. Because everytime I imagine an argument so stupid not even a libtard could embrace it, there you are, planting your flag on the rock of ignorance and making it your own.

You make it impossible for libtards to accuse any conservative anywhere of using strawman arguments - because you yourself ably represent the most buffoonish, ignorant charicature of libtard opinion any conservative could possibly conceive.

Have a good day. Try not to gawk at the rain too much. You'll drown yourself.; 6/10/09, 12:00 AM
Jeremy said...: Palladian - "Political Math is written by an individual with far too much free time on his hands."

The blogger said that about himself...dumbfuck.

And who the hell is this Gene person you're in love with???; 6/10/09, 12:03 AM
EKatz said...: This guy has a really interesting website, and I enjoy his plainspoken skepticism and willingness to dig into the data. He also doesn't seem at all the type to spout whining, noxious vitriol and ignore facts that he doesn't quite like.

http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/

He links to several economics bloggers and lists his data sources as The US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the White House Office Budget of Management, and Data.gov Though I'm off to bed now, I'll be looking through his detailed analysis tomorrow, and how he incorporated the numbers into his graphs and visualizations.

Better yet, I'll forward his link to my econ grad student friend, who's always rolling his eyes at the confident economic assertions and predictions spouted by politicians of all stripes.; 6/10/09, 12:05 AM
Jeremy said...: Jason - I repeat: Quit whining and try to be more positive about our President and our country.

It's disgusting listening to you and others bitch about everything he and the administration do.

That's all you and others ever do.

Bitch and wine.

If you really feel this way about our President and our government, why not do us a favor and leave the country?; 6/10/09, 12:05 AM
Jeremy said...: EKatz - He's a right wing anti-Obama asshole.; 6/10/09, 12:07 AM
Palladian said...: "That's all you and others ever do.

Bitch and wine."

Bitch and wine, is that some new sort of merlot-based cocktail?

"If you really feel this way about our President and our government, why not do us a favor and leave the country?"

Wow, I never thought I'd see a supposed "liberal" (ha!) make a "love-it-or-leave-it" argument.

I am seriously interested in this idea of a dissent-free democratic republic. That's a ... novel idea.; 6/10/09, 12:09 AM
Jeremy said...: EKatz - His name is Matt.

Wow.

Guess that's good enough.

Do you know his last name, his education, his politics, his credentials?

You just think he's really neat?; 6/10/09, 12:09 AM
Palladian said...: And all you seem to do is "bitch and whine (wine)" about everyone here bitching and whining? Why don't you set a good example and shut the fuck up and maybe we'll do the same?

titter; 6/10/09, 12:11 AM
Jeremy said...: Palladian - All you ever do is bitch and whine and eat and think about "Gene."

Get a life.; 6/10/09, 12:11 AM
Palladian said...: "Do you know his last name, his education, his politics, his credentials?"

What are your credentials, Gene? You seem to question everyone else on their credentials, yet you don't tell us why we should listen to you.

What's your area of expertise, aside from trolling, bitching and whining, and fellatio-based insults?; 6/10/09, 12:13 AM
Palladian said...: "Palladian - All you ever do is bitch and whine and eat and think about "Gene."

Get a life."

I do drink wine when I eat, that's true. And blog commenting could be described as "creative bitching", yes. But what do you do besides whine and bitch about everyone here? What do you contribute to this site, aside from a good reason to stop visiting it?; 6/10/09, 12:15 AM
EKatz said...: I think it's neat that he's given us a detailed breakdown of his numbers, so that his youtube video viewers - plus any visitors to his website - can check up on his numbers on their own, if they're so inclined.

His data sources are public information. So anyone with some math knowledge can follow his explanation and plug the numbers themselves (into excel or whatnot).

I like his openness. And his lack of provided credentials is at least mitigated by the fact that he "shows his work".; 6/10/09, 12:17 AM
Zach said...: Each and every one of the manufacturers had plenty of time to get it together.

What, sell their own company to themselves at a fraction of its value? They couldn't do that, because it's illegal.

If you ever want to do something illegal and get it ratified by the Supreme Court, learn from Obama. Set a tight deadline for ratification, and threaten disaster if the deadline is missed.; 6/10/09, 12:20 AM
Jim said...: Funny that "Jeremy" suddenly thinks it's unAmerican to criticize the sitting president. Even funnier that it is a 180 degree turnabout from his feelings less than a year ago. I wonder if his fantasies about fellating Obama could have something to do with his change of heart?

As far as inheriting the mess, Obama had the option of letting Chrysler enter into bankruptcy and renegotiate both its debt and union contracts. Obama CHOSE this mess, and he owns the inevitably sordid outcome too. He chose to pay off his UAW backers by handing them control of GM and Chrysler - but not until he stole the hard-earned money of all the other hard-working Americans to stave off the inevitable.

It was Obama's argument that we needed to bailout the car makers to save them from bankruptcy. That was a lie. They went bankrupt anyway. The "bailout" was always about political payback: you know, the same kind of pay-to-play politics that Blagojovich is in trouble for playing.

Obama didn't "inherit" anything: it was his decision to firesale Chrysler to Fiat - a company which was implicated in the Oil for Food scandal and which is in bed with the North Koreans. It was his and his alone. You can't blame Bush.

No one made Obama seize control: there were always other alternatives, but none that would provide payback to the UAW. Your entire argument is solidly based in BDS with absolutely nothing to back it up other than your feral screams.

Scream all you want, but this mess is of Obama's making and he has no one to blame on it but himself. (Oh, and the sycophants like yourself who enable his ego-driven behavior...); 6/10/09, 12:50 AM
Jim said...: Zach -

It's the exact same M.O. that Obama used to sell the stimulus (No time to read the contents, we have to pass it today!), that Obama used to sell the nationalization of the auto industry (Chrysler is losing $100 million a day, we have to give it away to the UAW now!), and that he has used to justify every one of his horrendous policies.

At some point people are going to realize that he's crying wolf, and when they do public opinion is going to turn - quick and nasty. As much as people are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt today, that has a time limit on it as well. Unless Jeremy's personal economic miracle happens in the next 30 days, watch Obama's numbers start to head seriously south not long after Labor Day...; 6/10/09, 12:55 AM
Zach said...: From page 17 of the petition, we see the petitioners' point:

As noted above, the $2 billion valuation employed
by the bankruptcy court arose from a liquidation valuation rather than the going-
concern valuation used to sell the assets. Under the bankruptcy code, however, a
claim that is “secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest . . . is
secured to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in [such property].” 11
U.S.C. § 506(a)(1) (emphasis added). Further, under section 506(a), “value shall be
determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition
or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.” Id. (emphasis added).

The decision below permitting a shift in valuation methodologies, from going-
concern value to liquidation value, violates section 506(a)(1) and conflicts with the
Court’s decision in Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 961-62 (1997).
There, the Court ruled that the lower court had “rendered inconsequential the
sentence [of section 506(a)(1)] that expressly addresses how ‘value shall be
determined’” by applying a foreclosure-value standard when the collateral was
actually going to be used by the chapter 13 debtor to generate an income stream.
Said the Court: “The actual use, rather than a foreclosure sale that will not take
place, is the proper guide under a prescription hinged to the property’s ‘disposition
or use.’” Rash, 520 U.S. at 963 (emphasis added). See also In re Chateaugay Corp.,
154 B.R. 29, 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that section 506(a) requires a secured claim to be valued on a going-concern basis rather than liquidation basis
when the property will be used in a post-confirmation going concern).

Under the proper going-concern standard (which is the basis for the
bankruptcy court’s approval of the transaction), the First Lien Lenders’ claims are
properly valued at $6.9 billion.

Not coincidentally, Chrysler had about $6 billion in secured debt.; 6/10/09, 1:00 AM
Zach said...: Ah, the petitioners made the same argument I did!

In order
to circumvent longstanding bankruptcy and commercial law, the U.S. Government,
Chrysler and Fiat have created an artificial deadline designed to force the courts to
quickly dispose of issues that deserve more careful judicial consideration. While it
is true that Fiat could back out of the deal if it is not consummated by June 15, it
has the express right to extend its purchase rights for another 30 days, and if is
truly the only bidder, then there is no worry that the company will be sold to
another in the interim. See Stay App. 27a, JSPA-62 (Sale Order). Additionally, the
benefits for Fiat, expansion of their operations into the United States, and a
potential of majority ownership of “New CarCo Acquisitions, LLC,” as well as
guaranteed government-backing of billions of dollars, make it unlikely to back out
of a deal with such favorable terms. In addition, the U.S. Government, which has
already given over $5 billion to Chrysler, has indicated its willingness to give
billions more to complete the sale. All of this shows, combined with the acknowledged public interest concerns, that the deal will not fall through if it is not
completed by June 15. On the other hand, if the sale is completed, the Indiana
Pensioners have no further recourse in bankruptcy court.; 6/10/09, 1:13 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Snaildarter!

Call me when they start making Chargers again...old school.; 6/10/09, 1:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Jeremy: the accidental resident whac-a-mole or just a masochist?; 6/10/09, 4:16 AM
Michael Haz said...: Did Ford get the same concessions from the UAW as GM and Chrysler did?

Ford didn't, so now Government Motors and Fiatsler will put the screws to Ford for not having gone bankrupt and rushing into the benevolent arms of of the Obama administration (who gets a taste for its "protection").

Corruption.; 6/10/09, 6:15 AM
EnigmatiCore said...: It was pretty amazing to watch, in this thread, the resident troll telegraph that his intent was to attack a messenger rather than being able to counter a message.

Or, rather, to counter a message by attacking the messenger. A video critiquing a left wing Democrat? Find out who it is by and bring him down!; 6/10/09, 6:27 AM
KCFleming said...: ""The Supreme Court won't hear the Chrysler case."

Goodbye, property rights.

Now the way is paved for the confiscation of medical care facilities by edicts that dictate pay, purchases, location, treatments, and services.

When the government is your auto customer, you make green cars of doubtful sales potential by companies known for poor quality.

That is, you get the POS East German Trabant.

We'll get mediocre medical care, primarily delivered by first line "mid-level providers" with lesser training than MDs. Specialty care will be rationed, with the House, Senate, wealthy donors, and other insiders gaining first access.

It's not hard to see how this will end, because this movie has played before in several other nations already. And the SCOTUS just ratified our descent into Hugo Chavez territory.

Oh, I'm sure the new US subjects will enjoy the free ice cream. Serfs always enjoy free stuff, but they're still serfs.; 6/10/09, 6:31 AM
KCFleming said...: Shorter SCOTUS:
Get in line, America!
Await further instructions from Dear Leader.; 6/10/09, 6:42 AM
Issob Morocco said...: As the sun started to set in the north west, little Kitsy wondered if Jeremy would make it back safely from the Althouse.

"I don't like how angry he gets." she said to Lou. "Why can't he just stay here in our village where his wisdom makes us so happy, why does he go back to the Althouse, knowing how he gets?".

Lou rubbed his muddy nose with his tattered sleeve, sniffed, and looked to the horizon. An ominous line of dark clouds was assembling on the edge of their world.

"We have pleaded with him, nay begged him to refrain from going over the edge of the world to the Althouse. Perhaps he feels he must slay his personal demons in doing so." Lou lamented, then sighed defeatedly.

"Let's climb on the wall to get a better view of the swamp and forest in case he comes home.", Kitsy blythely said, more hoping than believing she would see her hero of the village return.

"Now, now, Kitsy, you mustn't be so foolish, you know us villagers can't see the forest or what is beyond it, we only see the trees.", he reminded her, almost scoldingly.

"Yes, I know, I just wish we had Jeremy back, that would calm me down and make me happy!", Kitsy responded.

Together they climbed up the ramshackle wall to look for Squire Jeremy. The wall, falling down in places, disjointed in others, a momento of what the villager's God hath wrought on the village.; 6/10/09, 7:17 AM
Bart DePalma said...: Sad, sad day indeed for our Constitution.

Our vaunted checks and balances failed utterly and our property rights are void. We have an executive without Article II or statutory authority acting in contravention of the law. Congress has done nothing and now the courts have folded.

Welcome to what Michael Barone aptly nicknamed Gangster Government.; 6/10/09, 8:44 AM
EnigmatiCore said...: "Do you know his last name, his education, his politics, his credentials?"

Exactly how would his name be relevant to his argument?

Similarly, if an 'uneducated' person makes a cogent argument, is it somehow less meaningful than if an educated person had?

If a person is a liberal, or a conservative, or neither, does that impact the truth of their arguments?

Do you have any approach other than argumentum ad personam?; 6/10/09, 9:03 AM