I understand why the governor of Michigan would disregard the claims of senior secured debt holders in hope of helping a local company. But doesn’t this May 1 radio broadcast suggest a more cavalier attitude toward legal claims than is desirable in a justice of the highest court?
Hello, this is Governor Jennifer Granholm.
We’ve all heard that old saying – “what a difference a day makes.” Well, that certainly was the case this week when months of uncertainty for Chrysler came to an end with an announcement by President Obama that a path has been cleared for the company to not only survive, but thrive.
The agreement – which includes a global strategic alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat – will keep the company open, it will preserve jobs, and it will bring new technologies and new products that will attract new customers.
So, that was good news for the tens of thousands of workers who not only rely on the company for their jobs but who voted overwhelmingly to accept concessions and support the company’s restructuring efforts. It also came in spite of a few greedy hedge funds that didn’t care how much pain the company’s failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere. Their refusal to share in the sacrifice forced bankruptcy proceedings to begin.
4 responses so far
1 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 11:23 am
“I understand why the governor of Michigan would disregard the claims of senior secured debt holders in hope of helping a local company.”
I don’t. Explain it to me.
David. Obviously you’re AWARE of the accelerating trend of Washington and the states to simply ignore the “rule” part of the the rule of law – as well as ignoring the “law” part!
(*SNORT*) (It’s not frigg’n funny… the “snort” is simply frustration.)
David. Ditch the “more cavalier attitude toward legal claims than is desirable” witticisms. This is serious stuff. Jeez… it should terrify you – as it terrifies me – how few of the posters on this very site show ANY respect for even the CONCEPT of the rule of law over expediency.
BILL
2 krove // May 7, 2009 at 11:43 am
I gave up on the whole “rule of law” thing here when y’all were defending torture.
3 barker13 // May 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Re: Krove; wrote 52 minutes ago –
The point is… you DON’T believe in the rule of law; you don’t believe in the sanctity of contracts.
The “torture” debate revolves – in the legal sense – around interpretation of the law. Whether one reads the law one way or another… making their best case… both sides are still claiming that they represent the rule of law.
(Think prosecution vs. defense… the adversarial system itself.)
What you and people like you (apparently including self-described “conservatives” such as Sinz) are doing is ignoring the law… or actually… even worth.. defending the proposition that expediency and pragmatism leave questions of legality moot and thus you ignore the issue.
This nation can survive a lot… we can’t survive the denigration of the rule of law.
BILL
P.S. – If only David Frum would address the issue as directly with as much passion.
4 krove // May 7, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Yep Barking,
Pity about that Watergate thing, that was just a wrong address I guess.
And don’t forget Saint Ronny and the Iran/Contra scam!
Those darn Republican Presidents and their good old rule of law.
I’m pretty sure there is a lot more super duper law breaking to come out from the Bush maladministration. Just give it a little more time.
You must log in to post a comment.