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 (159194)	1/29/2003 10:12:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580142

If the federal prosecutor served at the pleasure of the president, then Nixon could have fired him. I know Clinton ordered a whole bunch of prosecutors moved out after he came in to office. I think Nixon thought somehow it would be less embarrassing if he could get the AG (or in Bork's case acting AG) to do the job. I did some checking.......the reason Nixon turned to the AG's office is pretty understandable.......federal prosecutors are employees of the DOJ and the AG oversees the DOJ. So even though the AG is appointed by the president, the president can't break the law and expect the AG to cover for him. The right to abortion is part of the law created by the states. And Bork would leave it up to the states to decide. He never even hinted at or did anything thing to cause a reasonable person to think that he would directly make abortion illegal. So then, he's not against abortions in the first trimester? AA was part of civil rights legislation passed in the '60's. The law passed in the 60s directly outlawed government imposed quotas. "Myth: Affirmative action means quotas" huppi.com "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 aclu.org newsmax.com slate.msn.com; I am not following this argument......I will have to read it when I have more time. In any case even if you disagree with a strict interpretation of the constitution I can't see how you can reasonably claim that the belief in such an interpretation renders someone like Bork unsuitable for a federal court position. The history of this guy makes him questionable IMO. Again I ask, is this the best the GOP has to offer for one of the most important positions in our country? ted