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: Dan B. who wrote (227647)	4/4/2005 3:00:35 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578448

<deleted>

To: Dan B. who wrote (227647)	4/4/2005 3:00:38 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578448

Re: ""Talk of "restricting" courts, may simply mean appropriate checks and balances being employed. EOM" No, the judiciary is part of the checks and balances." Pardon me, but "no" is an incorrect response. All three branches are part of checks and balances. My statement stands and as I wrote it, the proper short reply must be "yes." No, pardon me! 'No' is the correct answer. Fowler and others from the right want to restrict the courts beyond what they are restricted in the current checks and balance scenario. Re: "Restricting the courts would be undemocratic." No, the Courts ARE restricted by checks and balances, as are the legislative and the executive branches. I repeat.........restricting them beyond the current restrictions found in the checks and balance system would be undemocratic. Re: "Our FF knew what they were doing." Yes. And they expected the three branches to attempt to restrict each other as time passes, as deemed fit. That's right.........under the checks and balance system that the FF established and not some ad hoc addition created by the right and their legislators because they are unhappy with the courts' rulings. We know how that goes.......see the Schiavo case and Congress.