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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (624)	6/10/2005 10:10:54 AM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 541581

Her most horrifying ruling was against a woman that had been raped...she put the blame on the woman in some twisted ways CC

To: Suma who wrote (624)	6/10/2005 10:16:50 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541581

I read her decisions in a lot of cases and they certainly were not favorable to the little guy. Do you really want judges deciding cases based on favorability to a class? I refer you to that Krauthammer piece I just posted: "The real question is never what judges decide but how they decide it. "

To: Suma who wrote (624)	6/10/2005 11:13:10 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541581

Many of her decisions were attributable to the money that she received from various backers. Could you provide some specifics supporting that comment? I haven't been following this particular case all that closely. California Supreme Court justices do not campaign for office (they are appointed), and, with the notable exception of Jerry Brown's appointees, have had little need to campaign for re-election (as the choice is not between two people but a Yes or No option to continuing in office).