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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (8943)	12/30/2001 9:37:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

He won't be impeached and Bush won't be impeached. There are specific grounds required for impeachment and not agreeing with you is not one of them. And just how does Ashcroft have libertarians in his crosshairs?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (8943)	12/31/2001 7:52:45 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 93284

There is absolutely ZERO chance that Scalia will be impeached for anything related to the decision in Bush v. Gore... JLA

To: TigerPaw who wrote (8943)	12/31/2001 3:57:19 PM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Here is a quote from Justice Tony on the Court's consideration of equal protection issues. Sleep tight. “I shall devote most of my analysis to evaluating the Court's opinion on the basis of our current equal protection jurisprudence, which regards this Court as free to evaluate everything under the sun by applying one of three tests: 'rational basis' scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. These tests are no more scientific than their names suggest, and a further element of randomness is added by the fact that it is largely up to us which test will be applied in each case. Strict scrutiny, we have said, is reserved for state 'classifications based on race or national origin and classifications affecting fundamental rights,' Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988) (citation omitted). It is my position that the term 'fundamental rights' should be limited to 'interest[s] traditionally protected by our society,' Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122 (1989) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.); but the Court has not accepted that view, so that strict scrutiny will be applied to the deprivation of whatever sort of right we consider 'fundamental.' We have no established criterion for 'intermediate scrutiny' either, but essentially apply it when it seems like a good idea to load the dice. So far it has been applied to content neutral restrictions that place an incidental burden on speech, to disabilities attendant to illegitimacy, and to discrimination on the basis of sex. I have no problem with a system of abstract tests such as rational basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny (though I think we can do better than applying strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny whenever we feel like it)." (United States v. Virginia et al. (94-1941), 518 U.S. 515 (1996))