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: Joe NYC who wrote (163819)	3/11/2003 12:11:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573717

There are million laws on the books of the federal, state and local government concerning subject of "privacy". Out of all of these, the SC pulled abortion, and said that the people throught the elected representatives can't have any say on this one subject (while they can have a say on million other subjects just like the abortion) which is the the main reason for the Roe vs. Wade to be a faulty decision (and I am talking about mechanics, not the outcome). The Sup. Ct. deals with issues that are controversial and beyond the scope of legislatures and the lower courts. The justices on the Sup. Ct. are supposed to be the best of the best and their opinions should reflect that quality. As for Roe vs Wade, the Ct's ruling was an audacious one and ran in the face of popular opinion of that day. I know that religious proponents who wish to control the affairs of gov't have complained incessantly about the ruling but I have never heard someone complain about "the mechanics" of the ruling. I am not even sure I know what that means. The page you linked in does not address this issue. Address what? Roe vs Wade? I thought we were talking about the right to privacy. ted