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: TimF who wrote (487397)	6/12/2009 1:44:28 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573427

It takes four justices wanting to hear the case. So what we know is there weren't four justices that wanted to hear the case. That includes Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. They must not have thought anything was going on that merited a review by the Supreme Court. SD

To: TimF who wrote (487397)	6/12/2009 1:31:40 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573427

"No they didn't go further, they didn't go as far." Yes they did, Tim. While they didn't rule on the underlying merits, something they really can't do without actually hearing the case, they explicitly state that the plaintiffs didn't make a case that they should give it attention. scotusblog.com "Also why the bankruptcy judge isn't normally quite a rubber stamp, any agreement with the creditors has a lot of weight." Correct. The reason why a judge is in the loop is to prevent the very thing you are claiming has happened. Amusingly, instead of entertaining the possibility you might be wrong, you decided to insist that the judge didn't do his job. For no reason you can articulate.