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: ratan lal who wrote (120824)	12/6/2000 2:51:58 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

OT Hi Ratan, I am not interested in 'what' the decision is. I am interested in the basis in law and fact on which they arrived at that decision. --------------- Cool! Regards, Amy J

To: ratan lal who wrote (120824)	12/6/2000 3:03:35 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Ratan: That is just the point. They did not show how they went from the law to the decision. Not even the very good legal minds of the USSC could figure it out. That is pretty damning a judgement for a court that is supposed to explain the law. For all you can tell, they could have ruled that they did it this way, because they felt like it and then covered their tracks with a fog of mentioning a few things. What they did not do is first, here are the facts. Next these laws cover the situation by these facts. Now these laws are in conflict with these other laws in these ways. Now, we must take into account how and why these laws were enacted to see the legislative intent. But this method of implementing this intent comes into conflict with this law which trumps that, and on, till you get the decision on the legal basis for a remedy. These are the criterion for any remedy and our remedy fits the resulting criteria. Thus, the remedy is ordered. The front and back of the decision exists but the middle is just a hodgepodge of stuff thrown into a pot and stirred. It is that middle that is required so that the lower courts can apply the decision to all future cases fitting the situation and any party can figure what is allowed and what is not to comply with any similar situation. You can't comply with a law you can't understand. That is one of the top reasons for a judiciary in the first place. The FSC failed in this duty. The USSC said to try again and this time make an understandable and clearly written decision. All the parties deserve such. (And they implied, if you (FSC) do not or can not do this without recinding the order, we will overrule you) Pete