Chrysler, Obama And The Not So Supreme Court

I read with amusement the NY Times article "Chrysler gets clearance for bankruptcy". Among several things which caused a bitter chuckle or two was the revelation that the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of three Indiana state employee's pension funds that were to be paid only 29 cents on the dollar for secured debt, while the UAW - an unsecured creditor - would be paid 50 cents on the dollar and end up owning 55% of the stock in Chrysler. The reason given in the article was that "the Supreme Court (only) looks at big-picture issues with long term dimensions".

Truly? Isn't this the same Supreme Court that:

a) Did a "Divorce Court turn when they hosted Anna Nicole Smith - complete with celebrity photo shoot - in her divorce proceedings against the estate of her late husband, J. Howard Marshall?

b) Just recently (and for the umpteenth time) fine tuned which naughty words can be said on television, and which can not?

c) Engrosses itself every time somebody protests a plaque showing the ten commandments on public property?

It's interesting that Property Rights aren't considered to be "big-picture issues with long term dimensions" by the United States Supreme Court, but a Stripper's case against her Sugar Daddy's estate, potty-mouthed celebrities and the hurt feelings of Atheists are.

It's also interesting that the UAW should be handed 55% ownership for settlement of a mere $4.6 billion in debt. To put that in perspective, if the massive taxpayer subsidies that Obama has provided and will almost certainly continue to provide work their magic and sustain Chrysler, it's stock value should increase at least ten fold in the next year. Now, the UAW is sitting on $46 billion when it was originally owed only $9.2 billion.

Other outrages abound:

- With unlimited government support, Chrysler and GM will likely run Ford out of business, and all because they were a responsible corporate citizen, paid their bills and avoided an Obama takeover. Thus does Obama pick winners and losers, as any good Commissar of Industrial Planning would.

- Eight hundred Chrysler auto dealers were put out of business and stuck with billions in inventory for no better reason than that the Obama Administration said "do it". Curiously, their franchises were then given - minus that inconvenient inventory - to other dealers. Follow this particular piece of nastiness closely. It will come out that Democrat big-wigs and their supporters were the beneficiaries.

- Debtholders for Chrysler were the least of the victims in this money grab. Stockholders - that would be you and me and our 401k's - got nothing. Billions in stock equity that evaporated over the past two years, only to magically reappear in the pockets of the UAW and the Democrat Party.

If you follow all the threads of this story, you see nothing less than a frontal assault on Property Rights, the abrogation of Contracts, a seizure of assets so bold that it would have made Hugo Chavez proud, and the outright theft of hundreds of billions from stockholders, debt holders and taxpayers, and all to the explicit benefit of the Democrat Party and their minions.

Who would have thought that Obama and the Democrats could in a mere 90 days make every dictator in Central and South America look like paragons of virtue, much less models of fiscal restraint? Chavez himself has applauded Obama as being "more of a Socialist than I am". He was being kind. Socialism at least has a history of being grounded in the rule of law. Apparently, Obama is not so constrained.

It is even more disturbing that, in mere weeks, he has managed to co-opt the Supreme Court to do his nefarious bidding. Conservatives can look with hope to the 2010 elections, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Democrats have overplayed their hand, but what can be done about the Courts? Every decision they make becomes precedent, but the things they refuse to review become precedent too. Democrats know this, and with every favorable decision or non-decision increase their stranglehold on the Republic. Conservatives better wake up to what's going on here, or there won't be an electoral rebound big enough to make any difference.

The Weasel Words from the High Court justifying their abdication were instructive. In refusing to accept the case, they said: "A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues........Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone." And with that little bit of mumbo jumbo, the Supremes basically said that - while they weren't saying that the seizures were lawful - they simply couldn't be bothered, and let the Democrats steal 2/3rds of the domestic automobile industry for them and their pals.

There's plenty of shame to go around on this fiasco, but at least Democrats are playing to type. The Supreme Court has no such fallback to explain its action, or rather lack thereof.