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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (158903)	1/25/2003 2:39:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580049

Please explain why Mr. Pickering seemingly was unconcerned with the 17 year old's lack of a sentence even though he had shot into the couple's home and was the ringleader but instead Mr. Pickering was most concerned that Swan who was not even his client get a sentence that was proportional to the 17 year old's who got off scott free? Your allegation doesn't comport with the facts. It was Swan who was at trial and not the 17-year old, and Pickering could have had no impact whatsoever on the sentencing of the 17-year old. That said, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Pickering was "unconcerned" about the 17-year old's light sentence; in fact, his entire position was based on the fact that he felt the 17-year old, who was more responsible for the crime, had received a lighter sentence. I'm not sure why you're unclear on this. Sorry, big guy, but that's all it takes for me to suspect this man and I don't want him sitting on a court of law in this land. You conveniently fail to respond to my post pointing out his positions that clearly refute the notion of his being "racist". This is all about politics with the Democrats. ALL POLITICS.

To: tejek who wrote (158903)	1/27/2003 1:51:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580049

Please explain why Mr. Pickering seemingly was unconcerned with the 17 year old's lack of a sentence even though he had shot into the couple's home and was the ringleader but instead Mr. Pickering was most concerned that Swan who was not even his client get a sentence that was proportional to the 17 year old's who got off scott free? I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. As far as I know Mr. Pickering didn't intervene in the 17 year olds case. If the 17 year old did fire a gun in to the house that should have been a seperate charge which depending on the circumstances of the case could have been anything from some sort of illegal discharge of a firearm charge to attempted murder. If you are wondering why the 17 year old wasn't charged with that I would ask the prosecutor not the judge. The only charge I heard about was the "hate crime"/cross burning crime. For that 7 years if far to harsh. Earlier in his career, he voted twice to fund an organization committed to stopping integration and when he left the dem. party, he stated that one of his reasons was the party's support on civil rights initiatives. Certain civil rights initatives I would oppose, nothing obviously racist about opposing such initatives. Funding the organization you talk about is the only piece of actual evidence that links him in any way to racism. And that link is tenous indeed. He voted on a proposal to fund a group. There is a good chance that it was not a seperate bill to fund some group but part of a larger bill. Such bills are very common in the legislative process. Often the people voting for them don't know all the details of the large unweildy bills they are voting for. Also this orginization wasn't as openly racist as something like the KKK. It hid behind the idea of state's rights, and idea that is not itself racist. Someone who supporting following the original constitutional idea of what roles are appropriate for the states and what roles belong to the federal government could vote to fund the organization without even knowing that it was racist. There are other signs that Pickering is not a racist. In 1959, he wrote a law review article analyzing a Mississippi statute that criminalized interracial marriage that helped push the state legislature into amending the law. In 1967 he testified against Sam Bowers, a Ku Klux Klan leader who was being tried for the firebombing death of Vernon Dahmer Sr., a civil rights leader who was helping blacks register to vote. This testimony helped cost him his bid to be reelected as a local prosecutor. The Washington Post, in an article arguing against confirming Pickering said "Pickering's entire record is not that of a committed -- if now closeted -- segregationist; nor did the Senate find him to be such when it unanimously voted to confirm him as a district judge in 1990. " Other fact about Pickering - "Pickering was first appointed to the U.S. District Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. He was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed unanimously by the Senate as a whole. Now, after amassing a record of more than 11 years on the federal bench, he has received the American Bar Association's highest "well-qualified" rating," That quote and the answers to some other questions about Pickering can be found at nationalreview.com