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 (353)	12/13/2000 1:44:42 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

I note that after 20 years not much has changed; I still find myself agreeing with Stevens. Yes there were problems with the counting methods, but the USSC shouldn't have gotten involved. Just as FSC CJ Wells pointed out, the big loser was the integrity of the institution, Stevens points out that the big loser is the credibility of judges. I'll write more later, but I don't have time. By my count we have 3 (Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist) who believe that the FSC interpretation of the law is so extreme as amount to legislating new law. We have 2 (Kennedy, O'Connor) who have nothing much to say. We have 1 (Ginsburg) who thinks the FSC should be affirmed. Souter and Stevens see some problems but think that the USSC shouldn't have been involved. Breyer sees some minor problems but thinks that they could have been resolved with uniform standards. BTW, regarding Donaldson's quote, I was appalled by the thought. Legal systems give not only "fairness" but predictability, which in itself is "fair". Carl