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: margie who wrote (59837)	7/13/2001 7:57:56 PM
From: Prognosticator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

*Hey, you forgot to use italics* with your bold** Try putting in </b> next time. P.

To: margie who wrote (59837)	7/13/2001 10:40:25 PM
From: miraje	Respond to of 74651

Nice post, margie. ...what a crock of shxx antitrust doctrine is. Judges decide what it is, they contradict themselves and each other, there are no standards, and company's have no set of rules to tell them what is permissible and what is not. And the Red Queen said, "Off with their head!". The Sherman Act is a horrendous piece of ill conceived legislation and should be repealed, the sooner the better, IMO. It will be interesting to see what Scalia and company does with this case, if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. Regards, JB

To: margie who wrote (59837)	7/14/2001 2:53:25 AM
From: David Freidenberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Margie, I shared your same concerns regarding the lack of consequences for the outlandish behavior of JJ. I was confused and asked a lawyer friend the following question : “I am wondering, how a judge can violate judicial canons of ethics and rules of conduct, and yet supposedly the only remedy available is to disqualify him from the specific case, the only question being at which point in the case he should be retroactively disqualified, the beginning the middle or the end. The so-called punishment, to be removed from a case, with which he seemed fed up, seems more like a reward. Why no disciplinary hearings or actions as in other professions? What deterrent is there for unprofessional conduct in judges? I don't get it.” My lawyer friend’s response: “Short answer: since federal judges are appointed for life, we're all screwed if they're a**holes. Long answer: they're appointed for life so they can be totally independent of everything else in the entire world and don't have to be accountable to anybody. As we have seen, this is good and bad.” In summary, Margie, I think I understand now. If only the history books had been as succinct, I wouldn't be learning these things so late in life.