Federal District Court Obstructs Lawsuits Challenging Authority for Bailouts

In case you are wondering how the gov't is getting away with all this (from 9/26):

Late last week, WTP Chairman and constitutional activist Robert Schulz filed a federal lawsuit in United States District Court in Albany seeking to halt the execution of the emergency bailout of Wall Street insurance giant American Insurance Group, AIG. On Wednesday, Schulz filed a second federal lawsuit seeking to block the larger Wall Street bank bailout currently being negotiated through the U.S. Congress.

Yesterday, while ignoring the dissimilar legal issues raised in the two lawsuits, the U.S. District Court issued an Order combining the two cases into a single case and denying the applications for injunctive relief requested. The Court, in effect, ducked a judicial (and very public) hearing to examine the critical legal question at the heart of the bailouts: What Constitutional authority exists for the U.S. Government or Federal Reserve to use public (taxpayer) funds for definitively private purposes?

...

One unnamed practicing attorney also with several decades of federal litigation experience agreed that the District Court's basis for denying the injunction hearings was contrived to provide cover to block any public, judicial examination of the highly controversial constitutional questions raised by the bailouts adding, "If the Court had dared sign that request, all those cameras now in Washington would immediately be up here in New York."

So Goldman Sachs was rescued by an illegal, unconstitutional intervention by the Federal government, which you and I will ultimately pay for (I will pay twice, since I was short Goldman, silly naive me), and the courts are simply making shit up to avoid hearing any challenge to this.

These are dark times indeed; when rule of law is discarded for exigencies that do nothing for society as a whole, other than rewarding crooks.