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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (56623)	3/13/2001 7:33:34 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Respond to of 74651

Yes you probably would point to that. But Judge Jackson also spent some of this time granting interviews to journalists. His comments to Ken Auletta during this period can be found on page 230 of his book: "The general rule of law is that the Court of Appeals is generally expected to defer to the trial judge as to matters of fact -- unless the finding are clearly erroneous... What I want to do is confront the Court of Appeals with an established factual record which is afait accompli. And part of the inspiration for doing that is that I take mild offense at their reversal of my preliminary injunction in the consent-decree case, where they went ahead and made up about ninety percent of the facts on their own." Judge Jackson does not hide his contempt for the higher court, saying it is populated by "supercilious" judges lacking in trial experience. "One of the most frustrating things for judges dealing with the Court of Appeals is the way they trash through the thickets of legal scholarship. They embellish law with unnecessary, and in many cases, superficial scholarship." Let the thrashing begin....