Here is the link. And. . . here is the CSPAN link -- if the Supremes' own link is too clogged.
Once we are rolling, I may drop some comments, below:
. . .Waiting on the "Oyez"
➢ We are underway. Counsel for US Bankruptcy Trustee Harrington now setting the table. . .
➢ Chief Justice Roberts is now questioning him. . .
➢ Justice Gorsuch is now questioning regarding "major questions" doctrine. . . "Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouseholes", says counsel for Harrington.
➢ And Congress was clear: this is not authorized by the bankruptcy statutes -- so as a "major question", Congress already answered it. The answer is "No" -- to the Sacklers' gambit.
➢ Justice Sotomayor is now asking about how an "opt-in" process would work. But the US Trustee is pointing out that the Sacklers must contribute ALL their assets, not just 15%, if they want to be released in bankruptcy. That's clear federal law.
➢ Justice Brown-Jackson is helping the US Trustee. . . by saying this "isn't it true -- that this is more than just trying to "torture" the word "appropriate". . . into it is "appropriate" for the alleged wrong-doers to keep ~$15 billion -- when they won't enter bankruptcy themselves. . . ."
➢ In the end, the way this would horribly impact injured Canadians (by depriving them of rights under local Canadian law, in Canada -- in injury lawsuits against the Sacklers, directly) might be what may control the Supremes' thinking. . .
➢ The US laws cannot extinuish claims against the Sacklers' that arise in Canada, by Sacklers' billions in sales, of Oxy- in Canada -- where the Sacklers DO NOT SURRENDER ALL THEIR ASSETS to the US Bankruptcy courts (for delivery to the injury plaintiffs, globally). . .
➢ There is a "constitutional due process problem" where people who are not even being allowed to ask to opt out, are bound -- by someone (i.e., Sacklers) that reaps the benefit of the laws that they haven't submitted to, themselves, says Justice Sotomayor. She is correct.
More soon. Smiling. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment