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: TimF who wrote (159013)	1/27/2003 4:49:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580209

If you follow the line of reasoning about the fair thing for Mr. Swan you don't have to conclude anything about the 17 year old. If the 17th year old did shoot a gun in to the house he should have been charged with that offense, but apparently he was not. Either they couldn't get enough evidence (in which case the judge and jury are not supposed to consider it when deciding punishment for the cross burning) or the prosecutor didn't do his job. In fact, from what I understand, there were multiple shootings. And that is my exact point, what was going on in this town deep in the heart of Dixie that this guy was getting away with this garbage. It seems the treating of this whole case was done rather ineptly. Why? In fact, Mr. Pickering was so committed to helping D. Swan, he violated another judicial law......ex parte contact.......when asked, he barely remember doing it and blew it off as inconsequential. Mr. Pickering was the judge, I don't think he asked Swan to hire him as a lawyer. While the case was ongoing, he made contact with the Justice Dept [I think it was them] without counsel present. That's in violation of judicial law that governs the behavior of judges. He blocked the implementation of the 1965 Civils Right Voting bill for a number of years Delaying or even opposing a civil rights law doesn't mean that you are a racist. Delaying the implementation of a law for 15 years is against the law.........a judge would know that. Furthermore, this law was established to protect the voting rights of minorities. Why would Mr. Pickering object to that? And do you suggest that if you don't agree with a law and you are in a position of power than you have the right to do all you can to prevent its implementation? So that you know......the 1965 Voting Rights law was inacted because states like Mississippi were not enforcing the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees all American citizens the right to vote. In fact, approval of this law was in part prompted by the murder of voting rights activists in Philadelphia, MISS. So I ask you again why would it be okay for Pickering to delay implementation of this law for 15 years? Furthemore, why do you not suspect that racism may well be behind his actions....after all, where there's smoke, there's usually fire? usdoj.gov ted