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 (159139)	1/28/2003 6:35:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1580442

There is such a thing as principle. I believe the firing was an act based on principle for Bork. That doesn't mean you have to agree with his principle here but from what I have read he didn't do it for selfish reasons. What principle? The president was guilty of sedition and already had committed other crimes. The president is not above the law. I can't think of what principle overrules that concept. "Yes and such opposition was a good idea solidly grounded in law constitutional and otherwise." But he was in opposition to existing laws of the US based on his personal beliefs. Actually no. The constitution says nothing about a right to abortion. And affirmative action is in direct conflict with a lot of civil rights law and arguably the 14th amendment particularly when it amounts to government imposed quotas. Both AA and abortion may not be in the Constitution but they are the law. Not all laws are found in the Constitution. I think the only free speech that should not be allowed is the kind where you yell fire in a crowded theater. Are you really sure about that? I think perhaps you are for anything you would call speech besides the fire in a crowded theater type speech (and things like extortion and fraud through the spoken word), but a lot of what is considered by some people to be speech or at least expression ("freedom of expression") would be stuff that you might not support. Do you support an unlimited right to publish porn? Even if kids might see it, or it contains kiddie porn or beastiality and such? First I am not opposed to 'normal' porn .......that does not include kiddie porn or bestiality porn.....I think they are both against the law. But I didn't know that porn was classified as an example of free speech. Do you support the unlimited right to make political speech including advocating issues and supporting candidates at any time in the election cycle? Yes, of course.....I don't know why not. I can easily believe you are a strong 1st amendment supporter. I am as well. But there are areas where most strong first amendment supporters would not seek to protect. Bork's probably would go further then either one of us but he isn't an extremist on this. A lot of people would probably go further then him including some high ranking judges. I think Mr. Bork would be too controversial as a Sup. Ct judge. I think he would have been better off running for office. But getting back to the original point he was the subject of character assassination. You might decide you don't want him as a judge but that decision doesn't erase the facts about what happened in the hearings. I'd have to read the hearings. No offense, but the bio makes him sound like easy pickings. ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: