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: Neocon who wrote (9164)	1/5/2002 3:19:59 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I have no objection to the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march (by the way, freedom of assembly, not speech, is the issue here). You have no objection...other than you lost confidence in the ACLU. The USSC ruled in favor of the ACLU position; you lost confidence in the USSC as well? Sorry, I missed the memo to the thread that said we were now at the subclause level of precision in our posts. It's difficult though to imagine that freedom of assembly is not instrinsicly tied to freedom of speech. Yes, I think the the ACLU would be a better organization, with enhanced credibility, if it were capable of making such distinctions........ Seems the Supreme Court couldn't make the distinction either. Intellectual slackards. I find it odd that you should be so sure my opinion in the Skokie case was merely emotional. What I think I said [or at least meant to] was that you're changed opinion of the ACLU was an emotional decision. The Skokie case was one of many cases that the ACLU took on. One case [especially since it seems that they were correct according to the USSC] should not have made a bias change in your opinion towards the ACLU unless it was emotionally driven. One could also suggest that given the Court's decision that a self-examination would be in order to determine whether the continued opinion is an emotional one. That's between you and your brain; keep it that way. Back to the Point But this continues to diverge even farther from the original point, i.e., the characterization of the polling data pre and post the Supreme Court decision. The polling data indicates, given that the decision went against Gore, that Democrats thought [statistically] less of the Court and Republicans thought [statistically] more highly of the Court. This distinction alone indicates that the view of the Court was clearly impacted by a partisan view of what the decision should have been. [Let's hope that you won't introduce the silly proposition that it could mean that, in general, the GOP has a better understanding of the Constitutional principles and related case law of "due process" than do the Democrats in general]. Given the more dramatic increase shown on the part of the Republicans, it's not rocket science to conclude that Republicans are more partisan than Dems or Independents. You're use of a single person [you] in a single case is a but a poor distraction from the point of the general observation. Your logic is similar to a weather report that says that it rained across northern Ohio today [which let's say it did] and you saying I live in Cuyahoga Falls, OH and didn't see any rain. .... So yes, perhaps it didn't rain exactly where you were in Cuyahoga Falls but it still rained in Northern Ohio. jttmab