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: Lane3 who wrote (11598)	2/12/2006 10:03:12 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541933

Yeah- I knew about throttling. We're trying the Blockbuster service at this very moment, because they combine in store rental coupons with service by mail- so I figured I could get the high demand movies (like Bubble, for example) in the store, and then get the weird foreign movies I like (which never have a wait) by mail.

To: Lane3 who wrote (11598)	2/12/2006 11:16:49 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541933

"Justice Breyer on SCOTUS Politics By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 1:47 pm Via the AP: Breyer Says ‘Zero’ Politics on the Court He said, however, that he hadn’t detected any split on the high court along Republican and Democratic ideological lines. “I haven’t seen that kind of politics in the Supreme Court. Zero. It doesn’t exist,” he said. Breyer talked about other differences in how the justices make decisions, saying they can consult six basic criteria in assessing a law: the language of the law, the history of the text, tradition behind the text, precedents, the purpose of the law and the consequences of letting the law stand or striking it down. “I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences,” said Breyer, who was nominated for the high court by President Clinton. “Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history and tradition — believing that those help you reach a more objective answer.” All very interesting and points to the fact that probably the single most salient fact about a give court nominee is the way that person understands and applied legal interpretation, not their personal politics. And also why a nominee like Harriet Miers is a terrible idea, as such a person almost certainly lacks any thoughts towards legal interpretation, and would therefore be more prone to wholly political actions on the bench. Filed under: US Politics, Courts/the Judiciary \| \|Send TrackBack 1 Comment » 1. I got the opportunity to meet Justice Thomas a couple of years ago, amidst a group of students, and he said much the same thing. It really is a matter of judicial philosophy more than partisanship. These 9 people have to work together for the rest of their lives, they can’t let petty politics run their internal affairs like most of us. Comment by bryan — Wednesday, February 8, 2006 @ 11:47 pm" poliblogger.com