Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices 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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (159154)	1/28/2003 7:01:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1580265

What principle? The desire to keep the DOJ from being totally blown apart. The fact that the two people above him lost their job over this allready made a pretty good protest. Also the belief in the constitutional assignment of powers. The prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president. The check on the president is impeachment. Bork is very big on strictly interpreting the constitution. I probably would not have made the same decision that Bork did but I can understand why he did it. Both AA and abortion may not be in the Constitution but they are the law. Not all laws are found in the Constitution. The current regime on abortion is not found in either the Constitution or federal law, but rather in judical decisions. What one judge decides another can disagree with. AA is in some distant sense based on federal civil rights laws but it twists them so much as to enforce practices that where directly outlawed by the law in question (or at least outlawed the government from doing them). Thats why UM is in court. First I am not opposed to 'normal' porn .......that does not include kiddie porn or bestiality porn.....I think they are both against the law. But I didn't know that porn was classified as an example of free speech. "Obscenity" was decided to not be protected by the 1st amendment in court. It isn't mentioned in the constitution but it was an attempt to have some balance. Most people would not support the idea of protected extreme forms of porn and other similar forms of expression. Some people set the line in some places, some people set the line in other places, however almost anyone, including you and me would set it somewhere other then total free expression about anything in any time. Bork probably would restrict (or actually allow the legislature to restrict, he himself would not impose the restriction, it would have to be voted in) more then either of us, but he is not out on a far fringe on this issue. "Do you support the unlimited right to make political speech including advocating issues and supporting candidates at any time in the election cycle?" Yes, of course.....I don't know why not. Glad to hear it. Then I suppose you oppose some of the most recently passed campaign finance laws. I think Mr. Bork would be too controversial as a Sup. Ct judge. I think he would have been better off running for office. As a judge his main thrust would be following what the law says (and he really is a brilliant legal mind). As an elected offical he would be free to toss around his own opinions and political ideas. What is controversial about him is that he doesn't support the idea of saying the constitution says things that it does not say, in order to expand protections pr impose mandates for one idea or another. Some of the protections he might vote for if he was in congress but if the constitition does not contain them then the court in his opinion should not impose them. Of course among conservatives the loose reading of the constitution is just as controversial as the strict reading is among liberals. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next