General Motors Corp said on Thursday it had reached a deal with some major bondholders that would give them a bigger stake in a reorganized automaker and could pave the way for a fast-track bankruptcy backed by the U.S. Treasury within days.
The announcement was the clearest indication yet that GM, the No. 1 U.S. automaker, is close to filing for bankruptcy under the direction of the Obama administration. It would be the biggest-ever bankruptcy for a U.S. industrial company.
Under the proposed deal, which is supported by major institutional creditors holding about a fifth of its debt, bondholders representing $27 billion in debt would be offered 10 percent of a reorganized GM — the same stake they had been offered previously.
In a sweetener, bondholders would also receive warrants to acquire another 15 percent of the equity in the new company, provided they support a quick Treasury-backed sale process similar to one now being used for rival Chrysler.
Bondholders would have until 5 p.m. EDT on Saturday to indicate they would not oppose the sale process as planned, GM said. If bondholders do not provide those indications, common equity and warrants “would be substantially reduced or eliminated.”
…
The U.S. Treasury would own 72.5 percent of the new GM coming out of a bankruptcy sale process while a trust affiliated with the United Auto Workers union would own 17.5 percent, GM said in a filing with securities regulators.
Treasury is the largest lender to GM at this point.
GM, which has so far taken $19.4 billion in emergency U.S. government loans, was told by the Obama administration in late March that it had until June 1 to dig deeper and move faster for continued support. [Read More]
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a
white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said.
One of the main reasons the President has cited for choosing Sotomayor is her personal story. Sotomayor grew up poor, and struggled in a single parent home after her father died when she was nine years old. She worked hard to get scholarships for undergraduate school at Princeton and law school at Yale. But, a difficult life isn’t new, and it’s certainly not new on the court. Justice Clarence Thomas grew up in the segregated south, living in abject poverty in a shack with no electricity and also made his way to Yale law school. That didn’t stop Democrats from putting him through one of the most shameful, racist, and humiliating set of Senate hearings in history.
Democrats will try to make any tough questioning from Republicans look racist, don’t be alarmed. First, Sotomayor will most likely be approved by the Senate. Second, Republicans want to be sure that Sotomayor will wear the blindfold of Justice, and treat her cases based on the constitution—not on her experiences as a Latino woman or as an advocate for the disenfranchised. The questions from Republicans will be tough, but Republicans don’t judge on race or background, that’s the Democrats’ thing.
UPDATED: From Judge Sotomayor’s Lecture, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” at the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Symposium in 2002:
“I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.”
“This weekend’s conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area.”
“Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.” I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes’ movement.”
” [*91] While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor — I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area – Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.”
“That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme [*92] Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
“Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.”
- Sotomayor, Hon. Sonia. A Latina judge’s voice. 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87-93 (2002). Lexis, May 26 2009 19:52:04.
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as “an inspiring woman” with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the “respect of colleagues on the bench,” the admiration of lawyers who appear in her court and “the adoration of her clerks.”…
She would be unlikely to alter the ideological balance of the court, since Souter generally sides with the liberals on key 5-4 rulings. But at 54, she is a generation younger that Souter, and liberal outside groups hope she will provide a counterpoint to some of the sharply worded conservative rulings. [Read More]
President Obama spoke Monday morning at Arlington National Cemetery in observance of Memorial Day, after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. In his speech the President called on Americans to observe a day of “silent remembrance and solemn prayer,” and pause for a national moment of prayer at 3pm. It seems the President only intended to remember and pray precisely at 3 o’clock, he spent the rest of the day playing golf.
The President spent four hours on the course after asking Americans to “ring a bell or offer a prayer, say a silent thank you, and commit to give something back to this nation, something lasting in their memory, to affirm in our own lives and advance around the world those enduring ideals of justice, equality and opportunity for which they and so many generations of Americans have given that last full measure of devotion,” this morning.
I’m not nitpicking here: our brave men died to defend our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—whether they believed in the ideals of the French Revolution is another point entirely. I was shocked to hear the President bypass Liberty completely given his allusion to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. That cause for which our honored dead gave their last full measure of devotion is the cause of Liberty. In Lincoln’s day they fought to repair our torn Republic so that future generations could prosper in Freedom—today our heroes fight to maintain that freedom at home and bring liberty to people that have known nothing but equality in oppression.
If the President believes more in “Justice, Equality and Opportunity” than in Liberty, he should have given a father who had to go to work on Memorial Day while grieving for his lost son the opportunity to play golf in DC while the President took over his backbreaking work. Anyway, isn’t that what leftists consider Justice?
Iran increased agressive actions against the West today, sending six warships to international waters, a historically unprecedented move. The Islamic Republic also rejected Western overtures in dicussions on its rouge nuclear program… HopeN’Change will have to wait as Ahmedinejad says the nuke program is a “finished issue for us.” The Iranian President is branching out in his four way campaign for “re-election” (elections are only a formality in the Iranian mullocracy), he wants to debate Barack Obama at the United Nations General Assebmly.
It is suspected that North Korea and Iran have traded nuclear information, and possibly material, in their efforts to gain nuclear power. It looks like Ahmedinejad wanted to jump on the saber-rattling bandwagon, although he denies any connection to the North Korean program: “We don’t have any cooperation (with North Korea) in this field. We oppose the production, the amassing and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Ahmadinejad told a news conference.
The President’s address to the nation today was ostensibly about his national security policy instead, he harangued the American people on the errors of the previous administrations ways. “Decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass,” the president said. “And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.” It’s nonsense.
The Bush administration’s national security policies of the last eight years were effective and are clearly sustainable, Obama has not changed many of them. The arrogant and self-righteous rhetoric that Obama chooses over clear political discourse makes both him and the nation look weak in the face of our enemies.
Although the president talks about looking forward not back, I can’t help but think that this is a set up. The Obama administration seems to be setting the ground to blame the Bush administration for the next attack when he calls the detention center at Guantanamo Bay “a rallying cry for our enemies.” Gitmo was never any such thing, the rallying cry was 9/11, the rallying cries were the successful attacks carried out in London and Madrid that led to their government’s capitulation–and the next successful attack on the United States, where we can only hope Obama flip-flops again rather than turn to appease our enemies.
Only moments after the president’s address, Dick Cheney spoke at the American Enterprise Institute and “set forth the strategic thinking behind [the Bush administration's] policies.” Cheney came out fighting. He was not defensive; the speech was powerful and well argued.
“When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support,” Cheney said. “And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.”
On enhanced interrogation: “Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative.” Cheney said. “In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.”
Cheney answered–the dueling speeches are incomparable.
President Barack Obama plans to say in his speech Thursday that the U.S. lost its way in fighting terrorism over the last eight years by failing to trust its institutions and values, according to an administration official.
Obama will also renew his pledge to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying he will honor the commitment he made in the first week of his presidency.
In a remarkable split-screen presentation of opposing world views, former Vice President Dick Cheney will speak on the exact same topic moments after Obama finishes. Cheney is appearing at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where the audience will watch the president on large TV screens.
Cheney will say: “When President Obama makes wise decisions, he deserves our support. And when he mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.” [Read More]
“We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it,” boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun this week. The behemoth labor organization’s leadership is getting its money’s worth. Whether rank-and-file workers and ordinary taxpayers are profiting from this ultimate campaign pay-for-play scheme is another matter entirely.
The two-million-member union, which represents both government and private service employees, proudly claimed that its workers “knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls … and sent more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama.” It dispatched SEIU leaders to seven states in the final weekend before the election to get out the vote for Obama and other Democrats.
Through a series of local chapter takeovers and bully campaigns to destroy the reputation of executives who refuse to submit to their will, Stern and his scandal-plagued lieutenants have consolidated low-skill service workers to create a 21st century labor empire. The ubiquitous Stern now enjoys a prominent seat at the table of every major policy discussion at the White House, including economic recovery and health care radicalization.
Obama champions the SEIU’s top legislative priorities: expansive government health care (paid for with regressive sin taxes) and the “Employee Free Choice Act” to do away with private-ballot union elections in the workplace. He has SEIU-blessed bureaucrats installed in every corner of his administration to carry out the agenda. [Read More]
