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 (105695)	3/24/2005 3:56:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793698

Hannity was still going on about how the federal courts were thumbing their noses at congress by ignoring the specification for a de novo hearing. It is been interesting, to say the least, to watch some very sharp people "lose it" over this case. Hugh Hewitt is a prime example. He is a sharp lawyer, but you wouldn't think so to read his blog over the last couple of weeks. He seems to be "on a mission from God." hughhewitt.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (105695)	3/24/2005 10:53:04 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793698

Yes, I found the discussion on Greta's show between Larry Tribe, David Boies and Susan Estrich most illuminating. They had all read the pleadings, which was refreshing. But Tribe was wrong when he said that the constitutionality of the statue was a threshold issue before considering the injunction. Perhaps what he meant to say is that the constitutionality of the statute is one factor to consider when considering the "likelihood of success" prong of the test for issuing a preliminary injunction. That would be a fair analysis. I don't expect Hannity, a TV entertainer, to make an independent inquiry into the pleadings. His point of view, which was articulated better by David Boies, is that with a woman's life at stake, it's ok to cut a few corners and clean them up later. The sad fact is that a majority of the jurists believe that it is proper to remove food and water from a profoundly disabled person who is not otherwise dying. Because judges do what they want to do, and figure out ways to justify it, unless their hands are well and truly tied. In this case, their hands were not well and truly tied, so clearly they did not want to act. And that's that.