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: SBHX who wrote (359)	12/13/2000 11:37:51 AM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

SbH - I agree with your comments and thanks for an interesting article. Although I'm a Republican, in the 1988 primaries I found Gore to be an attractive potential Democratic candidate (and don't forget it was his campaign that introduced Willie Horton to the public, so even then he wasn't averse to using questionable, though defensible, tactics). I never found his fund-raising activities particularly offensive (to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke; "hey, I'm a Republican, I have nothing against sleazy fund-raising"). It was the contrast with his self-righteousness that diminished him in my eyes. And "poetic justice" seems to be the operative phrase in this decision. The lead line from this morning's George Will piece: washingtonpost.com There was poetic justice--the prosaic sort is being deliberated by the Supreme Court as this is written Tuesday afternoon--in Monday's oral argument. What I don't understand about the decision is why this particular issue wasn't the key one: Monday, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who occupies the seat for which Bork was nominated, asked the question which properly should have signaled checkmate against Al Gore's protracted search for a way to get a court to make him president. The gravamen of Kennedy's question to Gore's lawyer, David Boies, was this: Suppose that, after the Nov. 7 election, Florida's legislature had made by statute the changes--new deadlines for recounting and certifying votes, selective re-counts, and so on--that Florida's Supreme Court made by fiat. Would that have violated the federal law that requires presidential elections to be conducted under rules in place prior to Election Day? Boies, somewhat flummoxed, began his answer, "I think that it would be unusual. I haven't really thought about that question." Boies's admission that he had never thought about the large question of political philosophy involved in the Florida turmoil was altogether believable. ...Recovering his equilibrium, Boies replied to Kennedy that, yes, it would be contrary to the federal law for Florida's legislature to have done what Florida's highest court did because that "would be a legislative enactment, as opposed to a judicial interpretation of an existing law." Goes to the heart of the question you asked a few days ago: Is it permissible for judges to be proactive and allow their own wish to the results of the political outcome bias their judgment? IE: in their minds, is the judiciary co-equal or superior to the legislative branch of govt?

To: SBHX who wrote (359)	12/13/2000 4:20:51 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Hi SbH - you have to give the Stoics due credit, that is, sometimes when things are not meant to be, every move is a wrong move. One has to accept them as they are. Have you ever run into a situation where you drove 10 blocks from your home to your work place and you ended up stopping for 10 stop lights <VBG>? It has happened to me quite often, even though I would get out real early in the morning! But that didn't stop me from going to work. So, if things go our way, we should count our blessing :)! Hopefully, this event will make both Gov Bush and VP Gore better men. They are still kings and princes of American politics, Americans should not look down at them b/c they fought like junkyard dogs. That is American politics as we know it. That leads me to answer your rhetorical question ...the Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive, and they were supposed to be co-equal. But somehow, everyone sort of initially placed the judicial in higher regard. Why is that? While I don't have any definitive answer, maybe b/c the judicial branch was less tainted by controversy. The legislative branch and the executive branch of our govt have set themselves up in such a mexican standoff fashion that sometimes they couldn't back down even if they have wanted to. It goes beyond check and balance. It is the moral equivalence of extreme sport. These are smart people. I mean, former House Speaker Gingrich was a college professor. President Clintion and former Sen Bradley were Rhode Scholars. Princes and princesses of them all. Maybe it is true that power corrupts. OTOH, the judicial branch toils in the shadow, somethimes providing unpopular judgement. Maybe that is why, consciously or unconsciously, people are deferential. best, Bosco