Alright, I know it has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law, and little to do with law in general (except for that esoteric practice of law known as bankruptcy law), but I just have to mention it. Maybe it's my bleeding heart, Public Defender attitude of supporting the little guy against the big guys.
Has anyone noticed the interesting juxtoposition between the latest headline about United discharging all of their pension obligations in bankruptcy court (and foisting them on the taxpayer), which will inevitably reduce benefits that they had promised to people who worked for them for lifetimes, in some cases, with the recent legislation to severely curtail the ability of working Americans to declare bankruptcy and ever claw their way out of it?
Imagine the scenario: The banks and credit card companies, which pushed so hard for this legislation screwing over ordinary Americans, have financial problems. They take advantage of the fact that bankruptcy laws are still highly favorable to corporations over individuals. They discharge all of their pension obligations through bankruptcy court, putting thousands of their retirees into financial turmoil, many of whom have to declare bankruptcy. Many go into debt to the same financial services companies that they once worked for, who also pushed for this new law. They are not able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy court due to the new law, so they have to work into their 80's and beyond, living destitute, to pay off the companies that screwed them over by discharging their pension obligations in bankruptcy court. At the same time, their Social Security has been cut because the huge costs of paying the deficits caused by the Pension Guarantee Corp, which went belly up due to the numerous companies discharging their debts in bankruptcy court, forced the government to lower benefits to social security, pushing these people even further into debt. I guess the only positive side is that it will inevitably boost the stock prices of these companies to do this, which will mean that when Social Security is privatised, people's benefits won't be cut too badly.
How in God's name is this moral? How can any legislator who supported this stuff look themselves in the mirror (I know, Democrats as well as Republicans supported it, and all who did share the blame. But, it took a newer and stronger Republican majority in Congress, as well as a re-elected Republican president, to push this law, which had languished for 8 years, through to passage).