Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (115412)	5/22/2005 1:33:29 PM
From: carranza2	of 793872

I didn't get the impression you did of stoking partisan fires. You're right. He really didn't. I should have limited myself to saying that Will was wrong to use the decision as a basis for political commentary. The case was no big deal. If Scalia and Thomas had joined Stevens and Ginsburg on a decision involving a significant social or Bill of Rights issue, then perhaps Will's comments may have held water. But to read tea leaves in a Commerce Clause case stretches things to the breaking point. Why? Because you will never see Scalia and Thomas agreeing with RBG and Stevens on any signficant cases. Will was blathering today. Hey, we all have off days. On the other hand, this Prof. at UCLA thinks the decision was a big deal. Well, whatever, I used to sleep through the Commerce Clause discussions during law school. professorbainbridge.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next