Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Supreme Court Puts Chrysler’s Sale to Fiat on Hold
June 08, 2009 4:53 PM
Justice Ginsburg’s ruling today, putting on hold the sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat, does not mean that the deal is off.
While the ruling may put the sale in temporary turmoil, Ginsburg's action is really the safe, prudent thing to do. The 2nd Circuit's decision in the case - approving the sale - is due to be released today, and she may want to read the appeals court opinion before deciding the matter.
It is also important to consider that the 2nd Circuit's stay was to expire at 4 p.m., meaning the sale would go through absent any action from the Supreme Court. By stepping in at the last minute, Ginsburg has given the Court a little more time to consider the legal issues in the sale.
The key date is June 15 -- the sale must close by then or Fiat can walk away -- so there’s still time for the Court to consider these issues without causing harm to the deal.
June 8, 2009 | Permalink | User Comments (2)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where is the story of the firing of Inspector General, gerald Walpin,and why was he fired with out following the rules?
Posted by: Marion | Jun 15, 2009 7:01:48 PM
Yes, I agree with Marion, why no story about the Obama administration violated federal law, a law that Obama himself voted for while in the senate, to protect independent, investigator generals from being persecuted by a president who is seeking to quash investigations they find inconvenient?
What's more, given Eric Holder's demand that hate crimes legislation is necessary, why did he quash a judgment against 3 members of the New Black Panther Party for racist, anti-semitic voter intimidation and suppression? In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee Holder claimed the historical significance was important in his rationale in not allowing white, Christian, or soldiers in being protected under hate crimes legislation. That's hypocritical in that the historical significance should be that corrupt government officials condoning hatred and discrimination actually allow it to flourish. Apparently Ms. Greenburg doesn't have a problem with that, consider it news worthy? Perhaps she shares the same mindset of her peers in the media from back before the civil rights era?
Ms. Greenburg seems to pick and choose what she considers worthy of covering. Rather like ABC's being on the take to the Obama administration overall?
Posted by: Jenny | Jun 27, 2009 10:57:11 AM
Post a comment
