Why is the Supreme Court of the United States getting mixed up in the Chrysler/Fiat deal? Apparently some dealers and other people effected by Chrysler's meltdown are not happy about the deal, and are fighting it in court.
That's all well and good. That's what the courts are for.
But I thought the Supreme Court was only supposed to get involved in cases with some constitutional bearing. Noone has been able to tell me what constitutional controversy is contained in the sale of Chrysler to Fiat.
If anyone out there can explain it, please get back to me in the comments. If there's no constitutional issue, then the lower courts should hash it out and leave the Supreme Court to something more important than "I invested in a company and it's going belly up and I don't think I'm getting enough money out of the recovery deal".
No comments:
Post a Comment