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 (80811)	6/26/2004 12:54:49 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"in that sense it is a defense" I disagree. Supreme court rulings are not subject to review" "In some cases even when there is no specific supreme court decision it is clear where the courts tend to stand on certain issues Well.. perhaps we are ranging afield now. And perhaps that may be helpful in some way. There is an impaired driving law in Canada that is so ludicrous it beggars belief. Simply being CHARGED with impaired driving creates a MANDATORY penalty of about 18 months REGARDLESS of whether or not you are eventually found guilty of the alleged offense. But the only person who could afford to challenge this insanity all the way to the Supremes would be somebody in a law firm. I suppose it will happen someday... "but the fact that such rights are sometimes respected, and when sometimes the court will protect them when they are not respected makes having such constitutional rights useful." If the "rights" were irrational or unsupportable then they would not be useful as regards the freedoms and rights of humanity.