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: Carl R. who wrote (330)	12/10/2000 6:38:10 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Carl, you got to admit, so far any of the sides attacking any courts, and some of them quite harshly, are Bush "surrogates" (I heard Bush disagreeing with the first FSC decision, taking the position that "they made law", but he never called them "artisan hacks as have some of our more vociferous Rep congressmen.). Gore and its surrogate, said they disagreed with some courts (and thus appealed where they could), but I just heard Boies comparing Stevens and Scalia recent decision on the stay, and while Boies said he agreed with Stevens and not Scalia, he never said Scalia was wrong, he was very careful to state that both positions can very rational judgments. So far, you must admit that the Dems are taking the "higher road. Baker comments and recent Orin Hatch commentaries (he came out with a scathing condemnation of the FSC without even reading their 70 pages opinion)were spiteful of the courts and i think that they are seeding dangerous seeds of disrespect for the court system. If that continues, I agree with you that it could lead to shaking of the three legs foundations of our form of government. Zeev

To: Carl R. who wrote (330)	12/10/2000 8:54:40 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

Hi Carl - thanks for the elaboration. Seriously, I ve no intention to put you on the defensive, unless that is what you want. As I ve pointed out, debate is not my thing. However, I do enjoy a heavy dose of socratic dialectic. As far as "impartiality" is concerned, I like your final answer. I certainly do not see it as sacrosanct, maybe it is my bad habit of trying to topple the golden idol <g>! Sorry! Zeev has already pointed out the difference between the two camps in relation to the American judicial system, especially the FLSC. I agree with him about the contrast. However, I just want to point out, I am not here to defend VP Gore or Sen Lieberman. So even if they had done the similar thing like what Sec Baker did, that would not have absolved the blatant attack by Sec Baker and Rep DeLay etc etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. As a matter of fact, I am not even a democrat. However, in light of their behavior, I may join the party as just to spite the bad boys of the GOP [like they care <G>!] I am glad you feel the dark scenario will not come about; otherwise, the blame again falls squarely on the extreme elements of the GOP camp. I mean, by now, we know the some of the volunteers who stormed PB County were actually GOP congressional aides. I understand that the defense is that they were doing that as private citizens. However, I see a different picture. Take the financial industry as an example. If a direct employee of a financial firm working with financial securities during the day takes a night job as a boiler room operator, this person will likely be fired right away, even if no charges are brought against the person. This is serious conflict of interest. Now, back to the protest, even though they work in the political arena, these aides are essentially public servants. They derive their likelihood from taxpayer's funding. More conflict of interest. Finally, after all this digression <g>, the main point is that they could provoke a riot. Maybe your dark scenario is not too far off away. Imagine, public servants led the charge to disturb the peace. You are absolutely right, American democracy is indeed transitory relative to the time scale. Empires rise and fall. We should try to protect the precious litttle we ve accumulated throughout the ages. I am no legal eagle, let alone FL law, so I don't know if the accusation is right or not, but calling the judges of such a populous state with diverse constituents "political hacks" are serious charges. Even if it require a burden of proof in libel case in American judicial system and 1st Amendment is a wonderful protection, but nothing comes w/o a price. IMignorantO, I do not think "unusual" or "quite extraordinary" are enough to cut it. Why, seeking desegregation in the 60s was also "quite extraordinary" <VBG>! Enough rambling best, Bosco