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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (74244)	9/10/2003 11:00:03 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I just caught this, karen. Thanks. I agree with the conservative jurists that one has to avoid mere legislation from the bench, but all jurists need to do some extrapolating. I became convinced, reading a couple of articles by Ronald Dworkin in The New York Review of Books, over a decade ago, that strict construction was too narrow, and not wholly honest. I would say that I favor "conservative construction", that is, staying as close to the text as is prudent and useful.........

To: Lane3 who wrote (74244)	9/10/2003 1:43:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If its a slippery slope its already one we have slid down very far. I think that government should be limited by the law, and by the actual law, not something that might bear some distant relation to something in or even just hinted at by the law. With the establishment clause and the 14th amendment there is enough ambiguity to make Neo's extension not totally unreasonable. But "I think its not totally unreasonable" isn't the same thing as "I agree". I think the "right to privacy", and the 2nd amendment not such ambiguous cases. Tim