Hi Carl - I enjoy discussion based on reasoning also; however, I ve never enjoyed debate when debaters tend to be entrenched by citing only items in favor of one side. Or, due to the lack of education & insight, I am plain no good in it and thus behave like a sour grape <vbg>!
Thanks for explanation your view of "impartiality." I stand corrected. Maybe I ve read too much into your previous post, but it appears that the connotation of (im)partiality is valued loaded. For argument's sake, Josef Stalin and Mo Zedong, being Russian and Chinese respectively, were also "impartial" in killing their fellow countrymen! Am I getting the concept right?
Carl, I am trying hard to find the legal logic of your post, but being fairly uneducated, let alone any legal training whatsoever, I fail miserably in understanding statements like this
FWIW when I was a law student and used to read a lot of cases I always had tremendous respect for Stevens, much more so than Rehnquist. Perhaps in the intervening years the quality of their decisions have changed, who knows?
being grounded in legal logic.
I also appreciate your distinction between law and justness. However, what is incongruent [to steal Zeev's word from his post in the other thread <g>] to me that you have also predicted a dark scenario if your version of *law* does not unfold in the prescribed manner. Obviously, segregation was on the law books of many southern states in the 50s. So, I wonder if the KKK has used that to justify their lynching activities!
Anyway, I think our discussion is fairly academic now. It is quite obvious that similar ruling to the stay will be used on Monday to rebuff VP Gore. Even that is moot anyway. Since USSC cannot *make law*, Dec 12th deadline will come and go. Curtain time <G>!
best, Bosco |
