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: greenspirit who wrote (105700)	3/24/2005 7:32:18 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793691

the language seems pretty clear I think that the point you may be missing is this: authorization vs. action. Regardless of how the law seems to read to a lay person, congress passes laws that authorize other branches of government to do various things. The legislative branch does not initiate action in either the executive or judicial branches. They authorize it and they fund it. Then the other branches take action that has been authorized and funded according to practices in those branches--they take action based on whatever triggers are part of their practices. In this case, the plaintiff has to initiate the judiciary's doing what it has been authorized to do by congress. The plaintiff apparently failed to do that. I'm no lawyer, but I have operated in the executive branch in a role where I have had to interpret authorizations. You have to understand the parameters if you are going to swim in the pool.

To: greenspirit who wrote (105700)	3/24/2005 8:14:11 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793691

The other items she talks about in that post seem like lawyer-talk designed to confuse the issue. But then, I guess I fall under this mindset whereby she writes "Of course, there are different views on the role of text and legislative intent in statutory interpretation. Some people think that courts should follow the text and the text alone." If you are not following the text of the statute voted on and provided by the legislature specific to this circumstance, then you're opening a can of worms in regard to different meanings of many different documents and cases which do not necessarily apply. Why not stick with the text of the statute the legislature wrote directly pertaining to this case? It requires very little interpretation. The "intent" is clearly made in the words voted and agreed upon by legislative act. michael.. watching this from a distance,it feels to me that the only thing these appellate courts have been concerned with is PROCESS important though that may be our judicial system should be about ultimately be about JUSTICE as far as i can tell each and every objection raised to the execution of this woman has been met with an argument about PROCESS so what we have is a state sanctioned starvation death of a woman on the basis of technicalities ....not the least of which imo, was/is the standing of the 'husband' who petitioned the court to kill her.... ( and oh yes, let it be a PROCESS, let's not just give her a lethal injection like we do condemned criminals, that would too obvious) JUSTICE , tempered with mercy, demands that these judges reject all decisions rendered on the basis of technicalities when an innocent human life hangs in the balance

To: greenspirit who wrote (105700)	3/24/2005 10:40:23 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793691

Yesterday afternoon, the Army announced they would miss the recruiting quota again this month. That is two months in a row, but the situation is more serious than that. This is going to mean Army strength is down six of the past nine months. And this comes at the time the Army wants to increase active strength to take pressure off the Reserves and National Guard. We will learn the exact monthly shortfall in about ten days. I have also collected quite a bit of recent anecdotal evidence that 20 year retirements have been increasing substantially. I predict Army strength will be reported in the 490,000 to 495,000 range for end of February (that report comes out in about 45 days). That is a long way from the 532,400 authorized strength the Army was directed to increase to this year. Obviously, the huge enlistment bonus increases approved on Feb 3, have no traction yet. I doubt they get much traction. Very few youngsters know the difference between $10,000 and $20,000 and those that do are unlikely enlistment prospects imo. The bigger issue is what this does to our strategic thinking. At some point, soon, we have to admit that we cannot sustain our fighting force and adjust. For starters, I am beginning to believe that we must now consider avoiding, at all costs, an expansion of the War On Terror in the Mideast. That may be hard to do. Wars have a natural tendency to expand and grow. The General Officer who Commands US Army Recruiting Command wants to make an adjustment too. His new tactic, also announced yesterday, is to direct all recruiters to immediately begin appealing to the patriotism of the parents of young men. It only took him 7 weeks to discard emphasizing the big bucks as the primary incentive. I know some patriotic parents who would love for their kids to enlist. The problem is the kids can't pass the drug test. All of this reminds of the Vietnam era bumper sticker that read, "What if they had a war and nobody came?" unclewest