Enter the legal realists

CAUTION: I have no idea where this is going to end up, my mind is all over the place.

Legal realism is the belief that the law should not just be the written statutes but should take into consideration sociological, anthropological, and other social issues when considering decisions. While the legal realism movement largely petered out there is one main person carrying the torch for American Legal Realism. This man, Richard Posner, a Harvard Law graduate, former full time law professor and current lecturer at Chicago law School and current 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. (And so you don't have to look it up, the 7th Circuit is Chicago.)

Obama was also a lecturer at the Chicago Law School, Obama also graduated Harvard Law School, and as a person raised under Islam the idea of a legal system based on sociological and anthropological issues (a/k/a sharia) would be within the realm of reason, so the coincidence that surround these men is most likely no coincidence. It would also explain Obama's shunning of the other Chicago Law School professors and lecturers who he avoided. After all, a lecturer who is a legal realist teaching constitutional law is more than ironic, it is asinine. My guess is Obama felt it was better to lay low than get caught up in a philosophical dispute with people who didn't understand his take on the law. This could be backed up by the unprecedented dearth of writing he conducted as President of the Harvard Law Review.
What started me looking into this was the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement and Obama's press conference stating that everyone was willing to compromise except the hedge funds and how they were holding out for for "an unjustified taxpayer funded bailout." And the news programs and MSM played that repeatedly this week.

While on the surface it appeared as though Obama was playing his tired game of economic warfare it didn't take long to research the real reason for this bankruptcy settlement and the justification behind it. You see this pre-packaged bankruptcy plan was not initiated by Chrysler's lawyers but rather was set up and defined by the White House lawyers. And it doesn't take much to scratch the surface to reveal what these legal realists are aiming to do.
When it was decided that bankruptcy was needed, despite a now seemingly forgotten series of denials by the White House that "bankruptcy was not an option" and despite months of statements from financial and constitutional conservatives saying that bankruptcy was not just necessary it was inevitable or the government would be pouring unnecessary tax-payer funded bailouts into Chrysler to keep it afloat, the Obama team of legal realists came up with a solution.

But a group of lien holding owners had a problem. They represent not so much hedge funds but are mostly investors specializing in retirement investments, such as TIAA-CREF which specializes in teacher and public employee pensions. As secured lien holders they have the legal right to be the first investors paid out and are guaranteed their financial positions based upon law. But to show they are not operating in a vacuum, or from a position of greed, they were willing to be realists and cut the value of their position to 60%, or in other words they proposed reducing their lien based holdings, for which they could insist on 100% reimbursement before any other debts are paid, by 40%, in order to facilitate this bankruptcy and help the merger proceed. The thought behind this is their stake in the newly formed corporation could pay back the 40% which would help them meet their responsibilities ot their investors... everyday working people, who in some cases had no choice in where their retirement funds were invested.

But Obama and his legal team wanted the lien secured investors to cut their legally defensible position in the company to 29%... or rather discount it by 71% as essential to the success of the bankruptcy, and by association, the subsequent merger. But while literally forcing the people who are legally guaranteed 100% of their investment to settle for 29 cents on the dollar by using the MSM and the bully pulpit, the government was backing the auto worker's claim to more money than they would be entitled to as unsecured lien holders.

If you are still wondering where I am going with this...

The Obama team of legal realists are looking at destroying the legal principle of ownership. They intend to "legally" redefine the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to say that ownership of personal property is not an inalienable right. Ironically the left sold the Community Reinvestment Act as a way for all Americans to realize the American dream of "home ownership" while saying that ownership of personal property (the money we earn at work) is not a right.

The goal: a utopian statist paradise where rights are replaced with privileges and permissions. Because once the right of personal property and free speech have been redefined as privileges people will do what it takes to ingratiate themselves to the government because free speech and ownership of personal property two of man's defining characteristics.

Except if you can only have these things because the government allows it than you cannot be truly free... you are a subject to the government. whether the government puts you in shackles or you put them on yourself you are still in shackles.