The Court said nothing about the biggest issue lurking in the case: the legality of using federal “bailout” money to pay for the rescue of an auto manufacturer. In fact, the order stressed that “a denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues.”

See the SCOTUSBlog

Maybe not socialism, but probably more like National Socialism.

The issue is that in a Section 363 sale, the DIP lender is assumed to have an economic interest in getting the highest bid for the assets. They are the ones who negotiate with the stalking horse bidder to get better terms for the creditors.

In this case, the DIP lender was the government, whose interests were not necessarily to get the highest recovery (which explains how Fiat could buy Chrysler for $0). Their interests were political. To that end, by intimidating the secured lenders, they prevented a credit bid which would have meant liquidation.

Now, that's not capitalism, because the government has the power to persuade companies using the bully pulpit as well as their power to destroy the company with their legal power. The government is acting in the interest of political interests, the people. When that interest is above economic interests of the investors, well, that's like what those Germans did, isn't it?

After the CT ruling I don't understand why you are having a problem with this, SCOTUS wants to expand the power of government. Bush understood this and ran the policy machine as fast as it would go, with very little in the way of checks and balances. I seem to recall they appointed him, probably with just such a mandate in mind. After following the OJ trial closely, I think I understand what sequestering a small group of people does to their decision making capabilities. (This is what Souter was telling you). As a matter of course the new President is offered the keys to Pandora's box, which are hard to resist, in much the same fashion that the federal reserve chairman offers them the keys to the economy, which are crucial to their reelection plans, and a successful reelection is key to two terms, a chance to form policy, and a place in history. That Bush opened both Pandora's boxes is reflected in the final outcome of his presidency.

If you examine co-dependence as a Constitutional problem, there are no checks and balances on this road to authoritarian rule, whatever 'ism' you care to place on the end of the phrase.

The federal government in this country has helped businesses for years - with welfare payments, sweetheart contracts, many laws that benefit anti-unionism, free trade, tax benefits, political support, lack of regulation, privatization of many functions, breaking of monopoly rules, selling public assets like airwaves and timber for cheap, etc. Our government has been in bed with large corporate interests since day one, and this was bi-partisan. Only in the Rooosevelt periods were there some bumps in the road in this general picture.

Now the government is intervening more directly, but this does not change the kind of government it is. It is a bourgeois, rich man's government. This is more like corporatism - where the interests of the corporations and the government get closer and closer, and become identical. That is not socialism. Socialism means the ELIMINATION of corporations. Obama is helping Chrysler as a large corporation by having it consolidate with Fiat, another large corporation. The interests of some bondholders are secondary to corporate necessity. The workers are not driving this - they are being laid off, in plant and dealership, across the whole country.

Of course, red-baiting, or "Obama-baiting" is second nature to the Republican cretins, who have never studied political science, history or economics. Since the Republican party has to hide the fact that they are supporters of corporate America and big capital too, they have to call it something other than it is. So they prattle on about 'free' enterprise - which has never been free.

It is not surprising to me that the Supremes declined to take up the issue of secured vs. unsecured creditors in bankruptcy though that procedure has had a long tenure and is codified.

What stuns me is that the Court will not examine the misuse of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to bail out automakers and insurance companies, which were not specified or the intent of Congress in the TARP bill. Lest we not forget that the TARP legislation itself was an end-run around the Constitution since appropriations may not arise in the Senate, where this one surely did.

While I'm on the Supreme Court, there is precious little discussion of the dissent by Roberts and his three papal stooges who found nothing of concern in a State Supreme Court Judge taking huge donations from an energy company in West Virginia, then promptly casting the deciding vote on a major regulatory bill, then casting a vote to deny appeal.

no conflict of interest there....Where is America to go if we can't corrupt Judges like we have Congress and the Presidency?

No, that's not NS. Speer's economic policies did not hurt investors at all--actually, the people who owned Bayer, VW, Thyssen, Krupp et al. were very happy with his policies. The NSDAP probably would never have risen from being a Pat Buchannan-like fringe movement to real power without the reconciliation between them and the industrialists, who didn't trust Hitler at first. By 1933 German big business knew it could count on the Nazis to break up unions, direct state funds into their production, and basically let them run things as they wanted.

So...is Obama ripping off investors of a viable business? No. Is Obama breaking up unions? LOL, no. Did Hitler bail out dying businesses? No.

But...the Nazis did give plenty of business to their big companies...but that's an American tradition too, going back to at least 1812 when Uncle Sam Wilson contracted to sell meat to the Army in bulk (becoming known as Uncle Sam).

So what's the problem?