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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColtonGang who wrote (116046)	12/14/2000 3:19:17 PM
From: ColtonGang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The scene of the crime.........http://www.law.about.com/newsissues/law/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

To: ColtonGang who wrote (116046)	12/14/2000 3:36:27 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 769670

Benching the ideology © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com The most important lesson learned from the chaotic presidential election is not that the system works -- because it does not always; it is that some of the most powerful judges in this country are blatant ideological creatures. Take for example the Florida Supreme Court which caused much of the trouble in the first place. Newsweek magazine methodically analyzed the liberal biases of four of those jurists and connected them to a variety of pro-democratic causes. The article left little doubt that no matter what -- the four most left-leaning judges on that court were not going to put the law above their political preferences. And then there is the United States Supreme Court. Seven of those justices believe that there were constitutional problems with the Florida Supreme Court-ordered hand-recount because absolutely no uniform standards were in place to evaluate the votes. In Broward County for example, the Democratic canvassers counted votes for Al Gore that left journalists shaking their heads. It was strictly a partisan interpretation. Even the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged the blatant unfairness in his dissent. Yet federal judges John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to see that the no-standard problem was unfair to the rest of Americans who cast votes. According to Stevens and Ginsburg, it is no problem if partisans count votes. What? Is this not insane? I firmly believe that these two judges are so firmly committed to a liberal ideology that even if the Deity came down and said to them point blank: "Abortion is a crime against humanity." They would issue a dissenting opinion disagreeing with God. To be fair, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist are passionately committed to conservative thought, and there was little question they would not allow a liberal interpretation of the Florida vote. So the bottom line on the highest court in the land, the people who make decisions that all of us must live by, is that most of them are driven by ideology. This is not good. Now, on cases like police stops where there is little emotion involved you can usually get a pretty good ruling based on the law from the Supremes. But when there is an emotional case like abortion or a political candidate in a devilish situation -- that's when the bias comes out. Human beings are human beings. Just because they wear black robes doesn't make them immune from weakness. And make no mistake about it, becoming a prisoner to your ideology is a weakness. This is something I fight against all the time as a news analyst. Like you, I have my core beliefs. And I am sorely tempted to simply search for backup to prop up those core beliefs rather than be skeptical about them. So I find myself cutting out articles that back up what I believe and sometimes not reading dissenting material closely enough. I fight this but the temptation to fit the facts into my preconceived notions is a powerful one. Americans should now know that we are living in a deeply divided country. Part of that is because propaganda and slick lawyering has replaced truth as something to be valued. The political parties and candidates pay big money to spin-meisters and legal beagles who can twist the truth their way. And the media gobbles this stuff up. I, personally, hate that and that's why I've instituted the "no-spin zone" on my program "The O'Reilly Factor." I used to think that at least the Supreme Court would be comprised of truth-seekers. But now we know that it is not. The all powerful justices are just like the rest of us -- tied to a series of core beliefs that are sincere but all consuming. The law doesn't stand a chance against that.