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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108426)	12/9/2000 6:56:50 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

That argument implies that judicial restraint was of primary concern in the FLSC ruling. It was not. They court wrote new law, AGAIN, after being warned already by the USSC. The four USSC dissenters are also trying to achieve the end result (counting the votes), without consideration of the statutes, the federal law, and the notion of judicial restraint. Stevens is brandishing "judicial restraint" around, and the man has never understood what it means. LoF

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (108426)	12/9/2000 7:29:13 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 769667

departs from'' the rules of judicial restraint What you are seeing is payback. There are some members of the court who owe their lifetime job to certain people and they are now paying back the favor. Justice? Look for it in your comic books. TP