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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (323)	12/10/2000 6:05:49 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

OK, Bosco, so you want to put me on the defensive. LOL OK, I'll defend myself for a moment. My biggest problem with judges comes when they reach a conclusion that they think is "fair" or "equitable", and then try to bend the law to fit their decision, and I find it objectionable whether the judge is liberal (FSC) or conservative (Rehnquist). Of course to a certain extent this happens in all cases, but most of the time the law is a close call and the judge simply makes a minor adjustment. When a judge starts stretching and reading things to be the exact opposite of what they say, in my opinion that makes for bad law. My comment re: Rehnquist was that at least in his early decisions I found his legal reasoning "unusual". [Note this is much like C.J. Wells comment that the logic for overturning Sauls was "quite extraordinary". LOL] Re: impartiality, I suppose that if a Dictator killed both friends and foes (Idi Amin???) alike he could be called impartial. But note that impartiality isn't the only quality one would like to have in a leader. I admit that I have proposed some pretty dark scenarios, but one thing is that I have a deep belief that our current system of government is only temporary. In the scale of human existence it has existed for only a short period of time, a mere 200 years. For its continued existence it relies on our faith in its validity and respect for its rules; if we lose that it could be gone in a heartbeat, and probably would be replaced with something much worse. When I say that it is temporary, that doesn't mean it will end tomorrow, but rather that it will end when we cease to guard it as a treasure, and cease to appreciate what we have. I do not propose that these bad things will happen if the legal cases fail to unfold as I would like them. I really don't care how it ends, but rather that it does end, and that it ends with some kind of conciliation. What concerns me is that there is no evidence that there will be any conciliation from either side, but rather that there will be a continued escalation. I wanted to see the FSC end it on Friday by affirming Sauls. Now I would like to see the USSC end it by deciding that the case hinges on Florida law. What I don't want to see is a game of badminton where the USSC overrules the FSC, then the FSC overrules Lewis & Clark, and then the USSC reinstates L&C, then dueling slates of electors, battles in the House and Senate, and so forth. As I have said, the thing that holds our country together is faith in the process and the institutions. You see it as attacking those things when Baker attacks the FSC, and you are right. For that matter I have attacked them as well. You fail to see it as attacking those things when Gore and Lieberman, along with Jackson and others, attack the whole electoral process and claim that somehow a count and recount aren't enough and that we must divine the intent of voters who didn't for whatever reason cast legitimate votes. For whatever reasons, I see both sides escalating this into January. I see a situation where if Gore takes office 50% of the people will not accept him as legitimate, and if Bush takes office the other 50% won't accept him. I see the next step as the press and Democrats attacking the USSC as partisan. If the country has no faith in the courts, and no faith in the executive branch, and no faith in the election process, where will their faith be placed? What will hold the country together? I hope this explains my position better. Carl