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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jonewad who wrote (41752)	11/19/2000 12:14:41 PM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 57584

Jonewad, I am all for "doing the right thing"! Provided that it follows the current laws of the land. Changing the law AFTER the fact, even if it means making it better for all those who follow, is wrong. Lets use an example to make this clear to all. . . . The law says that it is illegal to "break and enter". Let's say for instance [using a very liberal and simplified view of the breaking and entering law. . and making assumptions soley for the purpose of making an example]. . . that a high profile B&E crime is committed by much-loved celebrity who happens to be a twice convicted felon in a three-strikes state. A dream-team of lawyers then brings this law into question. . . whereby if the item "broken" in order to enter was actually "taken apart" in a way where it could be easily fixed, then no breaking actually occurred. . . Only trespassing, which is a misdemeanor, thus the suspect would not be sent away for life under a three strikes law. . . but would rather be slapped on the wrist and released. However, let's say that the law is clear that the item must "remain intact". . . so the lawyers petition that the law be changed to show that the an item "taken apart" can in fact also "remain intact" when reassembled. The law cannot be altered for the sake of saving this beloved person from the sharp blade of justice. Doing so would be extremely unfair to those convicted by the same law. But AFTER the judgement has been fairly passed, it is OK to then pass the appropriate legislation to get the law amended as necessary. And if under this NEW law an appeal is filed, and the judgment overturned then so be it. But we can not allow any law to be changed to affect any outcome. Judges are given certain liberty for broad interpretation and that should be sufficient. But I am also watching that the current laws are not so broadly interpretted as to take on new meaning. So while I absolutely want the judges to "do the right thing". . . in the presidential election. I am most concerned that they follow the current laws of the land. . . so that justice prevails. I want what is "right" but only if it is also "just". Meanwhile, I believe that we need a quick ruling from the Supreme Court on this recount. . . to put this issue to rest once and for all. . . regardless of the outcome. Rande Is . . . . not a lawyer.