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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (104965)	3/19/2005 7:14:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

There is no great constitutional question to litigate here. Deprivation of life without due process of law is a constitutional question, as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Now, you may opine that in this particular case, this particular woman has not been deprived of life without due process of law, but that's another issue entirely. That's pre-judging evidence you haven't seen. No responsible federal judge would agree with you. They are required to withold judgement until the record has been developed. All you know, and all I know, is what we read in the newspapers, which is never good enough for me. I've seen too many cases where federal courts have overturned state proceedings to believe that state proceedings are always valid.