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 (159155)	1/29/2003 12:22:38 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580282

What principle? The desire to keep the DOJ from being totally blown apart. The fact that the two people above him lost their job over this allready made a pretty good protest. Also the belief in the constitutional assignment of powers. The prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president. The check on the president is impeachment. Bork is very big on strictly interpreting the constitution. I probably would not have made the same decision that Bork did but I can understand why he did it. If the federal prosecutor served at the pleasure of the president, then Nixon could have fired him. I don't know the protocol but I am pretty certain the prosecutor is independent of the president. In any case, refusing to turn over the tapes was an act of sedition.....Bork must have known that. Both AA and abortion may not be in the Constitution but they are the law. Not all laws are found in the Constitution. The current regime on abortion is not found in either the Constitution or federal law, but rather in judical decisions. What one judge decides another can disagree with. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade but then its up to the states to change their laws to reflect that ruling. The right to abortion is part of the law created by the states. The Sup. Ct. does not have the power to legislate law....but rather it interprets the law. AA is in some distant sense based on federal civil rights laws but it twists them so much as to enforce practices that where directly outlawed by the law in question (or at least outlawed the government from doing them). Thats why UM is in court. AA was part of civil rights legislation passed in the '60's. It is the law. Currently, there is disagreement over interpretation of that law so its been sent to the Sup. Ct. for a ruling. Yes, of course.....I don't know why not. Glad to hear it. Then I suppose you oppose some of the most recently passed campaign finance laws. I am not sure what you mean. I think Mr. Bork would be too controversial as a Sup. Ct judge. I think he would have been better off running for office. As a judge his main thrust would be following what the law says (and he really is a brilliant legal mind). As an elected offical he would be free to toss around his own opinions and political ideas. What is controversial about him is that he doesn't support the idea of saying the constitution says things that it does not say, in order to expand protections pr impose mandates for one idea or another. Some of the protections he might vote for if he was in congress but if the constitition does not contain them then the court in his opinion should not impose them. Of course among conservatives the loose reading of the constitution is just as controversial as the strict reading is among liberals. This is interesting......what you just said runs to the heart of the differences between liberals and conservatives. As a liberal, I see a strict reading of the Constitution as not productive. The Constitution is an excellent document but it was written over 200 years ago......I do not see how it can encompass adequately all the issues arising in a much more complicated world. Whereas it seems conservatives see no reason not to follow the wording strictly. I think this looseness vs tightness runs to the core of the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see conservatives as being to uptight and rigid while conservatives see liberals as to loose and over the top. I would hazard a guess that there is a genetic predisposition to produce these two different types of people.....it helps to insure the propagation of the race since they keep each other in check. Since posting on this thread, I have grown increasingly convinced there must be some biological imperative to have this kind of radical juxtaposition of perspectives. ted