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: Tom Clarke who wrote (106340)	3/28/2005 8:04:05 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 793640

Ordering marshals to take custody would certainly have had an impact. Yeah, a physical impact. "Shootout at the OK Hospice." It's a lot easier to snatch an alert child from a residence than an inert woman from a fully occupied and guarded medical building. More than changing the law, changing how cases are heard would be an improvement. I'm not sure which cases you're talking about, whether it's health care cases or cases, in general. In any event, to change how cases are heard you change the law governing same. I would think (flying blind here) that changing the law governing new evidence or disputed evidence would be much tougher than changing the law governing health care directives. You're talking about a big-time systemic change without any apparent public constituency. At least changing the medical directives law has a constituency.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next