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 (224704)	3/17/2005 6:36:22 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571911

re: No its not a black and white world, and there certainly are areas of the constitution and other laws that are unclear or subject to differing interpretations. I am only saying where the meaning is clear the courts should stick with it, and if it isn't clear they should stick with reasonable possibilities rather then just doing whatever they want unencumbered by the words of the law. It's true that they overstep their bounds (some would say that the decision to put Bush is office in 2000 was one of the worst, clearly a states rights issue, as stated in the constitution). But law is a very fluid process, subject to changes based on social opinion, anything but black and white. The Supremes have upheld salvery in the past, as an example. The writers of the constitution obviously couldn't foresee every application of the document. Thsy probably never thought about abortion. But current judges are bound to make decisions in these new areas, and they use the spirit of a wonderful document, the US constitution. Frankly, since the constitution says nothing about marriage being between a man and a women, it they stick to the literal, they should say a marriage could be between a dog and a cat from a federal perspective. But we are all sensible people. At least those of us that are not blind to shades of grey. John