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.

Non-Tech : The Enron Scandal - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2342)	7/12/2002 6:35:38 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3602

Duke, Re: these guys who established the Supreme Court Ruling which allows a sitting president to be bombarded with civil lawsuits, which in my correct legal opinion is slam dunk wrong! So, what do you suggest? The old standard Impeachment route? How can that work when the same corporatists who control the Executive Branch also have effective control of the Congress? Where is the redress of grievance for the public if not in the Courts? -Ray

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2342)	7/12/2002 7:28:13 PM
From: Robert O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3602

You know it was these guys who established the Supreme Court Ruling which allows a sitting president to be bombarded with civil lawsuits, which in my correct legal opinion is slam dunk wrong! Duke, have you ever read the very brief book (or longish essay depending on your view): No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton - The Supreme Court on Trial by Vincent Bugliosi? He's a bright guy and this argument is a good one which fairly sums up to: The majority ignored the balancing act between Presidential duties for the public good and the rights of individuals to bring civil suits immediately even against a sitting president. Given the matter Jones was bringing Vince is outraged at the decision. amazon.com RO Editorial Review from Amazon.com Vincent Bugliosi, the former L.A. County prosecutor who chronicled his successful efforts to put Charles Manson away in Helter Skelter, isn't afraid to let people know what he thinks. Others might be content to label a Supreme Court decision "incomprehensible and terribly flawed," but few would go on to raise the question of whether that decision reflected "near-pathological dizziness and irrationality" on the part of the nine justices as Bugliosi does in No Island of Sanity, a spirited, 132-page essay that launches Ballantine's monthly Library of Contemporary Thought series. Although it takes 30 pages of a general rant against modern society for Bugliosi to address the case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, once he starts, he gets right to the crux of the matter: What on earth compelled the Supreme Court to decide that Paula Jones's private lawsuit against Bill Clinton was of a higher priority than serving the public interest by having a chief executive undistracted from his work? The problem, as he demonstrates, is that Clinton's lawyers tried to convince the Court that a lawsuit against an incumbent President was a violation of constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, in that it would allow the judiciary branch of the government to have undue influence on the executive branch's fulfillment of its duties. The president's team never tried to argue that the public interest was better served by delaying the Jones suit until after Clinton left the White House. There are individual points on which one might quibble with Bugliosi--for example, whether America really deserves to be taken seriously by foreigners when scandals such as Clinton's alleged sexual conduct erupts. But Bugliosi's central thesis, that Bill Clinton's request to have Jones's lawsuit delayed was not an extraordinary request, and that consideration both of legal precedent and the public interest ought to have led to the granting of that request, is convincingly argued with passionate rhetoric and vigorous factual support.