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 (224750)	3/17/2005 7:51:09 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571978

re: Legal interpretations and legal culture are fluid. That doesn't mean the law itself is very fluid. Oh yes it is, always has been. Why do you think the Reps are so hot of "sentencing guidlines". They want to shut down the local, fluid, personal decision part. re: The word and the spirit of the constitution leaves this one up to the states to do whatever they want in terms of allowing or forbiding abortion. I could reasonably see the court striking down federal anti-abortion laws. That's one of a million things they didn't think about. Rights to the airwaves is another example. The judiciary interprets the spirit of the constitution; it's an old system that has served us well (mostly). Yes it's a very grey crap shoot, we're human. re: If the constitution says nothing about it than from the federal perspective the law is whatever congress passes, as long as it is an area where the federal government has the power to make law. Wrong. The constitution can't, as we both admit, be specific on issues 200 years after the fact. But it still represents the ideals of our country, and interpretation based on what it does say is the core basis of this country, and the rule of law. The judiciary has a place in this system; they interpret the law based on the constitution. To say otherwise is revolutionary. re: 2000 SC election decision- More of a grey area than it is one of the worst of the courts decisions. Not if you read the legal scholars, they believe it was a clear overstep by the USSC. It's clearly stated in the constitution that elections are the responsibility of the states. So what do we do? Put Gore in as Pres? Or accept the fact that the law is fluid, and given an extreme circumstance, sometimes the courts have to fudge it? John