...that Obama "lost" the case? I'm amazed at how incorrectly people are reading this story.
Some of Chrysler's bondholders asked the court to stay the merger with Fiat until their claims about the merger could be resolved.
It doesn't follow that the Court ruled in any way that the merger terms were illegal.
From the Wall St. Journal Online Edition:
"Monday's order granting an emergency stay could be a temporary delay. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after further review, has three options: lift the stay after her own review; issue another order continuing the stay until an appeal can be filed and reviewed; or refer the stay to the full court to decide."
All that happened was that ONE Supreme Court Justice--one of the more liberal ones--said, "Hold on. I haven't figured this out yet." That's all it was.
Why do conservatives who claim to be such experts on the law know so little about how it actually works?
Some of Chrysler's bondholders asked the court to stay the merger with Fiat until their claims about the merger could be resolved.
It doesn't follow that the Court ruled in any way that the merger terms were illegal.
From the Wall St. Journal Online Edition:
"Monday's order granting an emergency stay could be a temporary delay. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, after further review, has three options: lift the stay after her own review; issue another order continuing the stay until an appeal can be filed and reviewed; or refer the stay to the full court to decide."
All that happened was that ONE Supreme Court Justice--one of the more liberal ones--said, "Hold on. I haven't figured this out yet." That's all it was.
Why do conservatives who claim to be such experts on the law know so little about how it actually works?