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: SecularBull who wrote (123908)	1/29/2001 7:04:44 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"Likewise, the minority of the USSC all of the sudden believed in State's rights and judicial restraint. As much as I hate to admit it, the USSC action was political in all respects and from all sides" I don't agree LoF. Everyone talks like if you are a state's rights kind of judge you can rule no other way. That makes no sense to me at all. If you are a state's rights judge and the state makes a BAD DECISION, do you have to support them? I would think not, particularly when the bad decision will effect something as important as the President of the United States. I have also heard these judges described as "constitutionalists". I think they found the prospect of changing the rules after the game started more important than maintaining their state's rights position IN THIS CASE. They specifically pointed out (I believe) that this was not a permanent departure from their s.r. positions. Scott