What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I think FreshFish was referring to the 5th Amendment's takings clause. Unfortunately, we never spent much time going over temporary takings in Property class. :p:D:D
Click to expand...

Bingo! :)

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation [emphasis added].
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If AIG wins, how much is the hit against the taxpayers??
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

joecct said:
If AIG wins, how much is the hit against the taxpayers??
Click to expand...

Last news was the administration crowing about how much they made on their stake, which means that taxpayers might merely wind up with a smaller gain rather than a net loss. Don't forget that the loan to AIG carried a 14.5% interest rate and that was not included in the announced profit.

AIG itself is not a party to the suit, it is a suit brought on behalf of AIG shareholders.

It will be really hard to quantify at this point because the suit is asking for what they would have received from a bankruptcy (less what they actually did receive from their diluted stake) had the US not forced their way into the company.

It could well be the case, like a few others, that the government's actions are found to be unconstitutional yet the plaintiffs are not awarded very much anyway. To me that would be a good outcome. Very little in actual "damages" and a stern "don't do that again" lecture.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FreshFish said:
Last news was the administration crowing about how much they made on their stake, which means that taxpayers might merely wind up with a smaller gain rather than a net loss. Don't forget that the loan to AIG carried a 14.5% interest rate and that was not included in the announced profit.

AIG itself is not a party to the suit, it is a suit brought on behalf of AIG shareholders.

It will be really hard to quantify at this point because the suit is asking for what they would have received from a bankruptcy (less what they actually did receive from their diluted stake) had the US not forced their way into the company.

It could well be the case, like a few others, that the government's actions are found to be unconstitutional yet the plaintiffs are not awarded very much anyway. To me that would be a good outcome. Very little in actual "damages" and a stern "don't do that again" lecture.
Click to expand...
What if Uncle Sam's profit and interest income was returned to the shareholders of record? That would be more of a preventive than "don't do that again". A 2x4 sometimes works better than a paint stirrer.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

joecct said:
What if Uncle Sam's profit and interest income was returned to the shareholders of record? That would be more of a preventive than "don't do that again". A 2x4 sometimes works better than a paint stirrer.
Click to expand...


You raise an interesting thought about how the Obama administration would defend this suit. After all, TARP was implemented under GWB, he could just say "don't blame us, it's all Bush's fault." I doubt the fact that Obama is now taking credit for TARP's successes would stop him; he has no problem contradicting himself on plenty of other matters with no apparent discomfort whatsoever whenever it suits his short-term agenda.

The similarities between Obama and Nixon keep on coming. It is eerie scary for me.
 
FreshFish said:
You raise an interesting thought about how the Obama administration would defend this suit. After all, TARP was implemented under GWB, he could just say "don't blame us, it's all Bush's fault." I doubt the fact that Obama is now taking credit for TARP's successes would stop him; he has no problem contradicting himself on plenty of other matters with no apparent discomfort whatsoever whenever it suits his short-term agenda.

The similarities between Obama and Nixon keep on coming. It is eerie scary for me.
Click to expand...

And the similarities between you and all the Fark Independents (tm) out there keep on coming. Funny how you compare Nixon with President Obama on the same day Fox News described him as a liberal. I'm sure that was just a coincidence, though, right?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Oh, and for the record I don't see this one succeeding. The takings clause only applies when the gov't takes by force. This was a voluntary agreement with the board of directors.

Unless this octogenarian ***** can prove it was an offer the board couldn't refuse, he's going to be SOL.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
Oh, and for the record I don't see this one succeeding. The takings clause only applies when the gov't takes by force. This was a voluntary agreement with the board of directors.
Click to expand...

We'll see. The motion for summary judgment has already been denied. The takeover was put to a vote of the shareholders before it took place and they voted against it. not clear whether the board had standing to agree.

the crux of the entire argument is that the government did take by force. this one is going to the jury / to the judge, whomever is going to decide. from there, who knows?

The only thing we do know is that the outcome will be appealed either way.

The nice thing about these cases is that they don't care what we think. we are speculating on how others will decide more than what we believe should be decided, no?

where I think Greenberg could be in trouble would be during discovery. that will be crucial. will they limit discovery to 2008? or will they allow discovery to go back to 2002 or whatever. Greenberg did some dicey things moving stuff into offshore subsidiaries while he was in charge that might get him into trouble unless there is a statute of limitations for them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
Oh, and for the record I don't see this one succeeding. The takings clause only applies when the gov't takes by force. This was a voluntary agreement with the board of directors.

Unless this octogenarian ***** can prove it was an offer the board couldn't refuse, he's going to be SOL.
Click to expand...

Fantastic point.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
Oh, and for the record I don't see this one succeeding. The takings clause only applies when the gov't takes by force. This was a voluntary agreement with the board of directors.

Unless this octogenarian ***** can prove it was an offer the board couldn't refuse, he's going to be SOL.
Click to expand...
So was Vito Corleone's offer with Johnny Fontane's band leader. Same principle.

Or to paraphrase.... "Leave the bank. Take the profits..."
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
We'll see. The motion for summary judgment has already been denied.
Click to expand...

In one court. It was tossed out in the other.

A denial of summary judgement also means less than you think. When I was a law clerk, I denied probably 90% of the motions handed to me by judges. Doesn't mean I thought all or even most of them were winners.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
And the similarities between you and all the Fark Independents (tm) out there keep on coming. Funny how you compare Nixon with President Obama on the same day Fox News described him as a liberal. I'm sure that was just a coincidence, though, right?
Click to expand...

Well when the ****** loses I am sure FF will write a 10 thousand character post about how he actually won ;)

Funny that AIG wasnt whining when Bush handed them the check...especially since it was the AIG CEO who went running to Paulson when they were two days away from being completely flat broke. If he doesnt like the result he can kiss all the taxpayers asses.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Handyman said:
Funny that AIG wasnt whining when Bush handed them the check...especially since it was the AIG CEO who went running to Paulson when they were two days away from being completely flat broke. If he doesnt like the result he can kiss all the taxpayers asses.
Click to expand...

AIG is not a party to the lawsuit. AIG shareholders are bringing the suit, not AIG itself. AIG's Board declined to join the suit.

I'm not at all giving any opinion on what I think about it. I merely note that it brings some novel legal issues to the Court for resolution.



The whole mess goes back to Elliot Spitzer. He brought several high profile suits (called "greenmail" by people who disliked his tactics) because he really didn't have the evidence to win but he could force a cash settlement from companies who found it cheaper to pay him off than to fight. Those who did fight him (e.g., Ken Langone, ? Grasso) eventually won. Spitzer forced Greenberg out of AIG and since only Greenberg understood how the maze he constructed worked, AIG lost some of his risk control skills and without appropriate risk control problems arose.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The EPA gets spanked by the courts again. The EPA had asserted the right to regulate storm water runoff under the Clean Water Act. Somehow they wanted to declare water as a water pollutant! (I kid you not!)

Their novel legal theory was that nothing in the Act prevented them from doing so. Judge Liam O'Grady ruled that the Environmental Protection agency exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/tag/u-s-district-judge-liam-ogrady/

So recently the EPA has asserted it has the right to regulate our breathing (by saying it can regulate CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions, which we all do every time we exhale...) and now they wanted to say that rainwater is a pollutant. Maybe we need to change the structure of the EPA so that it is run by commissioners and thereby accountable to Congress, just like the SEC, FCC, NLRB, and other alphabet soup agencies are. Having one non-accountable fanatic in charge who only is constrained by the Courts after the fact is becoming hazardous to our well-being.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Have you checked the expiration date on the tin foil you're using in your hat? I think it might be time for a new one...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Rover said:
Have you checked the expiration date on the tin foil you're using in your hat? I think it might be time for a new one...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can lend me some of yours? you seem to have more than enough!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Clarence Thomas finally speaks during oral arguments. No, he doesn't ask a question; he makes a joke apparently about Yale Law School.

Bloomberg Business Week interview here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top