Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (486954)	6/10/2009 8:08:19 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573447

They only needed four justices wanting to hear the case, couldn't even get Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito interested. That's how little "there" there was there... SD

To: combjelly who wrote (486954)	6/12/2009 12:42:14 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573447

No they didn't go further, they didn't go as far. Deciding not to hear a case isn't the equivalent of ruling for one side or the other. Why didn't they hear it. The supreme court hears a limited number of cases. Less than they used to. Also why the bankruptcy judge isn't normally quite a rubber stamp, any agreement with the creditors has a lot of weight. And there where no serious constitutional issues here, at least none of the type the courts have been prone to find significant. A reasonable argument can be made that the constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to do this, but the commerce clause has mutated in to almost being "the government can do just about anything it wants clause", and courts have gone along with that.