Consider these ramifications:
1. Ginsburg submitted the matter to the entire Court. Given her strong dissent in Bush v. Gore, I wonder if she might have been thinking about the unilateral stay that Justice Scalia issued in that case, and her desire not to do the same thing here. I also wonder if she might have been thinking about the institutional value of assuring that the entire Court participate in the decision, given all the heated rhetoric that was accompanying the Chrysler appeal in the media.
2. Did the Court telegraph a justiciability concern when it suggested that the Court should tread more lightly in areas of national policy normally shaped by the Executive Branch? That would be consistent with justiciability standards the Court has espoused in the past.
3. Did the Court intimate that it was unimpressed with the rhetoric of the objecting creditors when it ruled that an insufficient showing had been made by them to warrant a stay?
4. Did the Court also signal that there were nonetheless some disturbing aspects of the case that, if properly raised by the right parties at the right time and in the right forum, the Court might want to take a look at? If so, what does that bode for GM?
John Pottow
Yeah, I too read a “we’re watching you” shout-out to GM in the semi-delphic language.
Comments
3 responses to “Chrysler Appeal — Let the Closing Commence”
Pocket Affirmance!
Consider these ramifications:
1. Ginsburg submitted the matter to the entire Court. Given her strong dissent in Bush v. Gore, I wonder if she might have been thinking about the unilateral stay that Justice Scalia issued in that case, and her desire not to do the same thing here. I also wonder if she might have been thinking about the institutional value of assuring that the entire Court participate in the decision, given all the heated rhetoric that was accompanying the Chrysler appeal in the media.
2. Did the Court telegraph a justiciability concern when it suggested that the Court should tread more lightly in areas of national policy normally shaped by the Executive Branch? That would be consistent with justiciability standards the Court has espoused in the past.
3. Did the Court intimate that it was unimpressed with the rhetoric of the objecting creditors when it ruled that an insufficient showing had been made by them to warrant a stay?
4. Did the Court also signal that there were nonetheless some disturbing aspects of the case that, if properly raised by the right parties at the right time and in the right forum, the Court might want to take a look at? If so, what does that bode for GM?
Yeah, I too read a “we’re watching you” shout-out to GM in the semi-delphic language.