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: TimF who wrote (74316)	9/10/2003 4:47:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Too late to Edit - "Not decide that its decimator to ban vegetables" Should read "Not decide that its discrimination to ban vegetables"

To: TimF who wrote (74316)	9/10/2003 5:21:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I see many judges not looking for the meaning of what is unclear in the law or even extending it the minimum necessary to make how it applies to a new situation clear but rather making up new legal ideas that are not in any way contained in the laws. I have no argument with that. Not decide that its decimator to ban vegetables but allow other food to be sold and so impose a ban on selling meat. I agree with that. But I do think it's appropriate for the court to decide that tomatoes should be treated as vegetables for the purpose of this law given that most people think that they are vegetables, that they are used as vegetables, and that the lawmakers intended the law to cover tomatoes.