"The Executive branch is attempting to use the 363 sale to push through its own bankruptcy plan without going through the courts."

Every bankruptcy goes through the courts. They go through bankruptcy court. That's where the Chrysler sale went through, and where it should go through. If the Indiana pension fund concerned has a problem, they need to resolve it through proof of claim just like any other creditor. Assuming they did that, and did not just stampede to the SCOTUS hoping to get a better hearing from a conservative body, they have had their day in court. If the BK judge decides their claim is ludicrous because there are no assets to back the bonds, or that the only way to settle the debts is to break up the company and sell off the pieces (eliminating the potential for rebuilding Chrysler, and therefore Detroit), that's too bad.

The SCOTUS cannot be expected to intervene here. There is bankruptcy law at stake, perhaps, if you believe that; but there is no constitutional issue at all. There is no constitutional obligation to pay creditors back in a BK, and there is no right to demand the SCOTUS, or any appellate court for that matter, to hear any case it chooses not to.

-------

I assume you were directing this at Ouroboros, to whom I was responding. I generally agree with the points raised in your comment.

"two nuts have murdered two people and hardly justify an overstated report that smeared veterans and conservatives."

Does it really "smear" veterans to state that right-wing extremist groups will try to radicalize and recruit them to take advantage of the skills the veterans learned in the military and that a small percentage of veterans do join these groups? Aren't those just facts? If it was a report on gang violence, would it be a smear if the report said that gangs try to recruit young black and latino males and that a small percentage of young black and latino males end up joining gangs?

Also, the report does not use the word 'conservative'. It is pretty obvious that the report was not talking about Jonah Goldberg or Rush Limbaugh.

That response was even sillier than I'd imagined it would be.

"I hear rumors that Obama's new health care 'reform' will include a provision LEGALLY REQUIRING me to buy insurance from a private 'health care' company."

That really isn't about fascism or socialism, it's about lowering insurance rates by expanding the risk pool. Just dry actuarial stuff.

Ok, I'm an attorney whose clients are insurance companies, and not a underwriter or actuary, so this is pretty rough and may include some incorrect info, but I think it basically works like this:

Let's say you underwrite homeowners policies in Texas. You insure a lot of homes in Galveston on the Gulf Coast. Every so often, a hurricane comes through and wrecks Galveston. Let's say that you can expect a total loss every 50 years. Inland, however, in Austin you expect a total loss every 100 years because of there aren't hurricanes. If you only insured homes in Galveston, your rates would need to be twice as high as if you only insured homes in Austin. However, if you balance the homes you insure in Galveston with the homes you insured in Austin, you can offer lower rates. You get to offer lower rates even though you are underwriting twice as many homes as before.

So, if you force young, healthy uninsured people to get insurance, then it will lower the insurance premiums for everyone else who's insured. Even though it seems like the risk has increased, because there are more policies being written, the risk is actually lower because we can expect the number and costliness of claims to decrease as a percentage of the policies issued.

Of course, if you are living in Austin, this means that your premiums may rise as more Galveston homes are insured. That's why lots of insurers will try to avoid insuring high-risk homes. The state of Florida has to operate a homeowners insurance company (I think its some sort of public-private entity, but I'm not totally sure) to insure homes that no private carrier will insure. That is why any sensible mandatory health insurance plan will also preclude insurers from rejecting applicants on the basis of health, age, pre-existing conditions, etc. Its sensible because otherwise insurers would only seek to insure those healthy people and everyone else would be screwed. Of course, it also means that the benefit gained by expanding the risk pool with healthy insureds may be wholly negated by including the sick.

"If a lone Muslim murdered David Horowitz, that Zionist enemy of Islam, nobody would call him a terrorist, or say 'gee the DHS is not only correct but they accidentally forgot Muslim extremists.'"

(1) If a guy who happened Muslim murdered Horowitz, say, during a burglary or because Horowitz was sleeping with his wife, you are correct, no one serious would call him a terrorist. However, if the guy was Muslim and part of a group called "The Muslim Anti-Zionist League", which advocated the murder of all Zionists, then people would probably say, with reason, "Whoa, these anti-Zionist Muslim extremists are pretty dangerous."

(2) I don't think anyone has forgotten about Muslim extremists.

So you think that "leftists celebrate each and every death of each and every American solider because they view the loss of life as a vindication of their belief that they are right"? Let me phrase this as delicately as I can: Fuck you.

Signed,

A leftist Democrat and patriot

Jeez Louise these people are nutty.

If Sotomayor's SAT (and perhaps LSAT) scores were a bit lower than some white applicants, yet she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and became an editor for Yale Law Journal, maybe the real issue isn't affirmative action, but our reliance on a few points differential on standardized tests to determine who deserves to get into colleges and who does not.