SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: D. Long who wrote (3021)7/2/2003 9:13:18 AM
From: JohnM   of 793845
 
That is legislating from the bench, and it is blatantly in violation of seperation of powers.

You planning to bring a case on those grounds? We'll all be waiting to see.

Kennedy created a rule out of thin air where none existed before, and in spite of precedent.

Precedent in this case was wrong. I assume you mean the Bowers case. If you keep invoking the precedent issue, you will then have to accept Roe v Wade, which your friend Scalia certainly doesn't.

Hmm, let's see that opinion was also signed by Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer. I gather you think they didn't share Kennedy's opinion. Why not simply call it the majority opinion? Oh, that would give it too much credibility.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News