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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (128538)	11/14/2000 2:29:34 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1570713

Ted, My first and current impression of the judge's ruling is, he took the same route the secretary of state did. The secretary of state had two choices: 1) follow the letter of the law in place 2) interpret the law as she saw fit, which would lead to either or both sides nailing her to the wall. I think she chose 1 because she can at least tell herself she made the only decision outlined in law and she wouldn't be doubting herself if she made her own interpretation. The judge also had two choices: 1) follow the letter of the law in place 2) interpret the law as the judge saw fit, which could lead to accusations of him exceeding his authority. Judges cannot changes laws or rewrite laws. He chose 1 because it would take the monkey off his back. Deep down, I think the judge didn't want to touch this; I would guess the judge would have more authority than the secretary of state on interpretation of the law. He basically told everyone it was up to her to interpret the law. (The judge was trying to save his political viability) steve