The Majesty of the Law

Posted June 9th, 2009 at 4.47pm in Rule of Law.

It takes an expensive lawyer…scratch that. It takes a very expensive lawyer, from Sullivan & Cromwell no less, to explain to the Supreme Court that when your client’s CEO said he would “never walk away” from a certain deal, what he really meant was that he would run away from the deal at the drop of a hat.

So what does this mean in terms of the Kabuki at the Supreme Court? It’s hard to say. But there’s a real possibility that the U.S. government, Chrysler, and Fiat are overplaying their hand. The Court, as a rule, does not like being pushed around, especially by the other branches of government.

Tagged with Chrysler

5 Comments

June 9, 2009 Henry Stobbs, Tiffin, Ohio writes:

Agreed, that there is a possibility that deuces are being played for aces, and that the court will display its irritation by “doing the right thing”. on the other hand, the Court is as politically sensitive as any other branch, and may decide to keep quiet. It’s a vastly different court from the one that slapped harry truman down when he tried to take over the steel mills, and a less self-certain judiciary than the one that put Roosevelt in his place. Time will tell, and I have hope, but who would have predicted that the statists would have gotten THIS far?

June 10, 2009 P Saunders writes:

Yes it is a different court. But this is still a country of laws. And no matter the make up of the court the law must be upheld. Life time appointments suck. I am for doing away with life time appointments anywhere.

June 26, 2009 The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » MORNING READ writes:

[...] Joe the Volcano - E. Alterman, Daily Beast GOP: We’ll Vote on Sotomayor in 2011? - J. Marshall, TPM The Majesty of the Law - A. Grossman, The Foundry Pirates in Parliament! - Hilzoy, Political Animal An Inconvenient Study [...]

June 29, 2009 Roger S., MA. writes:

Ayn Rand, 50 years ago, in Atlas Shrugged (and countless interviews thereafter) predicted how the statists might get this far, and showed in her novel how ugly that could look. Asked if this was a prediction, she only said “she hoped not”, but that expectations and attitudes were changeing such that it could happen.

July 2, 2009 Nicolas, Albuquerque, NM writes:

Supreme Court Judges are not appointed for life. If you read the Article III of the Constitution of the U.S. you will see that they are appointed not for life, but… “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…
It was not uncommon for judges to get booted out of office for something as simple as public drunkeness. Our Congress and State legislators can boot them out any time the judges do not follow the constitution or the laws. They have no authority to make law or to enforce it. All they have to power to do is to give an opinion of the law. Then it is up to congress to change it or up to the president not to enforce that particular law. That is how the system of checks and balances are supposed to work. Now our current elected employees are either not following their oath either out of ignorance or out of contempt. I believe it is out of contempt because most politicians are lawyers and as the old saying goes - “Birds of one feather, flock together”.
Read the constitution and study history from origingal documents. Most books after 1930 have been revised to meet socialist agendas. If you don’t believe me, ask any high school or college graduate who has taken american history. Some of their views are ludricous.
For God and the Repuclic!
Nicolas Lomas

The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

The Foundry