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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47009)	6/19/2000 4:06:00 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 74651

I don't see how the Supreme Court would take a case as strange as this one has been without letting another court take a look at it first. jmho

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47009)	6/19/2000 4:07:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Sure, but the Supremes will listen to the CT of Appeals and send it back to them. That's Jackson's problem: if he doesn't send it to the Supremes then the CT of Appeals will get it but if he sends it to the Supremes then the CT of Appeals will get it. Only then they may be even more irritated.

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47009)	6/19/2000 4:47:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Judge Jackson may certify the case for appeal to the Supreme court, but there is another motion still pending. That is the stay motion. When we last left our heroes, the ruling on that motion was delayed until after MS filed its notice of appeal. That notice has now been filed. It might be considered inappropriate to consider the case of such importance as to request Supreme Court review while denying the very stay which would preserve the company and the issues for that determination. The court of appeals has shown great deference to any Supreme Court determination.

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47009)	6/19/2000 5:15:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

JC - Jackson may well certify the case to the supreme court - but that has little to do with whether they take it. The supreme court wants cases where the essence has been boiled down to a single issue, and arguments can be heard in an hour. Thanks to NPR and Pacifica, I listened to actual testimony in about 20 supreme court cases, and they all honed in on a single question. This case is nothing like that. What is the single question that the supreme court would consider? Jackson has left a mess, exacerbated by his failure to allow debate on the remedy phase. Issues of procedure and law are open, the remedies themselves are unprecedented and not well tied to either the charges or the evidence, and the implementation of the penalties is on a schedule which would not even allow the supreme court to schedule the hearings before implementation. Why would they touch that when the appellate court is ready to sort it out? No way (San) Jose!!