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 (227851)	4/5/2005 3:47:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578444

Re: "I repeat.........restricting them beyond the current restrictions found in the checks and balance system would be undemocratic." There is nothing obvious here I should bother to disagree with, save that the statement is not a repeat at all. I guess its hard for you to say you agree when you do agree. It may be a repeat of your intent, but it is not a repeat of what was said by you. I clarified it so there was no misunderstanding of the statement's intent. You did state some glaringly odd things as I pointed out. So my statement stands, and despite your efforts, it was not in contradiction to the plain intent you show above. Should you think checks and balances allow no room for other branches to act against the actions of courts (and you had been writing as though you do, IMO), you don't understand the checks and balances, I'm quite sure. If an example of what you consider a potential check is the legislation passed by Congress for the Schiavo case, then it is you who does not understand the checks and balances system.