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 (355)	12/13/2000 7:54:11 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Hi Carl - with regard to the USSC ruling last night, I ve only gotten some 2nd hand info on teevee and I ve not read anything in greater details. I'd be lying if I said I am satisfied with the ruling. Yes, I find myself agreeing with Justice Stevens & Justice Breyer most. As I ve said in my previous post, I thought the dice was cast on Saturday. So, I am not at all surprised in the end result. However, while I still maintain my reverence in the judicial [both FL and SC] institution, I find the "remand" is too artificial to dodge the bullet! When the USSC used it the 1st time, it was a novel approach. This time, in light of the stay order and the Dec 12th Safe Habour, one would expect there would be stronger language to demonstrate "no irreparable harm" was done to either candidate. I admit my reaction is not from the perspective of a legal expert; rather, it draws deep from my personal experience. When I was young a long time ago <G>, like most people, I was ambitious and wanted to climb the corporate ladder [in a decent manner, I thought :).] Anyway, I was working on a MIS [they call it "IT" these days <g>] project. One day, a business manager stopped by and said he didn't like one of the reports. Well, I went thru the data and the logic with my people, they seemed alright. So, I sat down with this manager and walked thru everything --- from raw data to intermediate calculations to final analysis --- with him. I thought I did a pretty good job to convince him the numbers were correct. Then, he said to me something like "I need you to prove to me this is wrong" <VBG> I was floored. I was more amused than upset, since his manager was my peer. I could have pulled rank on him, even though I didn't Anyway, that was my last real job <VBG>! I said to myself, "I ve enough of this." I don't like doing any CYA myself, and no way in heaven <g> I would help to CYA for others. I thought of this incident when I watched the USSC majority ruling last night. OOH, they did want to side with Gov Bush [nothing wrong with that in itself;] OTOH, they didn't want to bear the responsibility of being considered the ones who picked the 43rd President. However, their action said something else. Btw, since I don't really know the context in which Sam Donaldson made his utterance, I ve no more particular opinion about him or his opinion. Maybe you are right about predictability. However, the habit of the court [any court] these days is to make a ruling so specific [which can be a good thing] that every situation is unique. Maybe it is my personal bias. All these 3 strikes laws carry such a high degree of "miscarriage of justice" that one has to wonder if an "enlightened despot" approach is better. best, Bosco