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 (159165)	1/29/2003 4:43:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1580122

If the federal prosecutor served at the pleasure of the president, then Nixon could have fired him. I know Clinton ordered a whole bunch of prosecutors moved out after he came in to office. I think Nixon thought somehow it would be less embarrassing if he could get the AG (or in Bork's case acting AG) to do the job. The right to abortion is part of the law created by the states. And Bork would leave it up to the states to decide. He never even hinted at or did anything thing to cause a reasonable person to think that he would directly make abortion illegal. The Sup. Ct. does not have the power to legislate law....but rather it interprets the law. That is the way it is supposed to be... AA was part of civil rights legislation passed in the '60's. The law passed in the 60s directly outlawed government imposed quotas. "Glad to hear it. Then I suppose you oppose some of the most recently passed campaign finance laws." I am not sure what you mean aclu.org newsmax.com slate.msn.com The Constitution is an excellent document but it was written over 200 years ago......I do not see how it can encompass adequately all the issues arising in a much more complicated world. Whereas it seems conservatives see no reason not to follow the wording strictly. I agree that the constitution much change over time to reflect the fact that our country does not remain the same as it was 200+ years ago. That is why there is an amendment process. If the constitution means whatever some judge wants it to mean then effectively we have no constitutional limits. We would no longer be under the rule of law but rather the rule of men, specifically judges. In any case even if you disagree with a strict interpretation of the constitution I can't see how you can reasonably claim that the belief in such an interpretation renders someone like Bork unsuitable for a federal court position.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next