Chrysler Debacle Legal Summaries and Commentary

Scotus Blog: Court clears Chrysler sale, without dissent

Insisting that it was denying a postponement “in this case alone,” the two-page order said the challengers had not met their burden of showing that a delay was justified. The reference to this case alone perhaps was a signal that the Court did not want its order to appear to give advance clearance for any other government rescue plan — such as that to save another auto company, General Motors.

George Will: More Judicial Activism, Please

"We," said Queen Victoria, employing the royal plural, "are not amused." "We," said the Treasury Department on Tuesday, relishing the royal prerogatives it exercises nowadays, "are gratified that not a single court that reviewed this matter, including the U.S. Supreme, found any fault whatsoever with the handling of this matter by either Chrysler or the U.S. government." Is it lese-majeste to note that Treasury is being misleading?

Of course courts should not make policy or invent rights not stipulated or implied by statutes or the Constitution's text. But courts have no nobler function than that of actively defending property, contracts and other bulwarks of freedom against depredations by government, including by popularly elected, and popular, officials. Regarding Chrysler and GM, the executive branch is exercising powers it does not have under any statute or constitutional provision. At moments such as this, deference to the political branches constitutes dereliction of judicial duty.