Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (6806)	6/1/2000 12:17:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

I don't think anyone could accuse Judge Edmonston of wanting to make Castro happy, so that argument is specious, IMO. He is the one who granted the injunction, and he's no admirer of Castro. He's also the author of the opinion, the excerpt I read said that the decision was mandated by the U.S. law on immigration, which grants plenary powers to the Attorney General. The Attorney General's decision not to grant an asylum hearing was only reviewable if there was a violation of law or an abuse of discretion, which the court did not find. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the court was not free to substitute its own judgment for that of Congress (legislative branch) nor the Attorney General (executive branch). I am sure that all good conservatives agree that it is not the place of the judiciary to re-write laws that Congress wrote. Judicial activism is something that all conservatives abhor.