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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Saturn V who wrote (120715)	12/5/2000 5:07:31 PM
From: ratan lal	Respond to of 186894

I think there was ranting and raving of impeachment. i dont think anyone actually brought a motion. And in any case if it had, and passed, this country would have taken a decisively conservative bend. Of course they could have done the same thing by passing a constitutional amendment with the required majority. that would have been simpler than trying to impeach a judge for his judgement. And in any case there would have been a constitutional crisis since there is the seperation of powers. It would also have been interesting since most all congressman are lawyers themselves.

To: Saturn V who wrote (120715)	12/5/2000 6:21:36 PM
From: WTSherman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<It also enlarged the criminals rights with the Miranda case.< Miranda expanded the rights of people who are in the custody of the police and not represented by an attorney. It was designed to protect innocent victims of police abuse. You only have to look at the sad record of states like Texas and Illinois(in death penalty cases) to know how easy it is for completely innocent people to be convicted of a crime. Miranda may have kept some criminals from being convicted, but, it also prevented lots of innocent people from being railroaded by the police.