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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (771)	12/11/2000 12:22:45 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

regards my last post,i just got a PM saying "i didn't know that was the same supreme court as now" i replied<< is that supposed to be a joke??? same country fellow,history can,and does repeat itself.max>> point being,never get complacent,regards these matters,that is my opinion.max

To: LTK007 who wrote (771)	12/11/2000 12:35:03 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 6089

I was thinking about the Dred Scott case after reading this bit that I posted yesterday. Since Chief Justice Warren transformed it in the 1950's from a guardian of property into a kind of people's tribunal, the nation has depended upon it to validate what other branches of government do, as well as adjudicating disputes between the branches and between Washington and the states. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/politics/10ASSE.html?pagewanted=print Funny thing about Dred Scott, the rallying cry in the South was always "states' rights", sort of like the current Supreme Court, but when push came to shove, the antebellum Supreme Court didn't much hold with states' rights when it went against the only states' right that really mattered then, the right to hold slaves. Guardian of property and all that. I'd imagine the current court's stand on states' rights is equally flexible, if not quite so obviously. The main thing is, the "property" of everybody that's invested in the Bush Restoration must be protected. Then W can appoint a couple more Scalia/Thomas types, and the Supreme Court can resume its proper historical role. Cheers, Dan.