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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (121886)	4/29/2008 9:28:29 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 173976

Haditha, youtube.com

To: TideGlider who wrote (121886)	4/29/2008 9:32:55 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

Murderers: youtube.com War criminals shooting and killing civilians just for kicks.

To: TideGlider who wrote (121886)	4/29/2008 10:58:54 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Again, why would those two particular justices rule in favor of New Jersey because they were born there? That's similiar to the question I was asking. I thought it was an odd coincidence that the two justices that had a connection to New Jersey ruled in favor of the State of New Jersey in this state vs. state case. Perhaps it's only a coincidence, and they both felt this way from a cold legal standpoint, or perhaps it demonstrates the inherent bias in Supreme Court justices to shape their rulings to fit their beliefs or affinities in life. I know it's a stretch, but having followed the New Jersey vs. Delaware case throughout the process, I was taken aback when I saw who was dissenting from the majority opinion, the two Jersey boys. In fact, I laughed when I saw the dissenters. Two Jersey boys looking out for their home state? Oh well, I have no doubt that Supreme Court Justices try to be as objective as possible. Scalia even said in the 60 Minutes interview that he could not justify banning abortion based on purely constitutional grounds, as many abortion opponents hoped he would, even though he is an abortion opponent himself. Good for him. I have wondered at times about his objectivity when reading his rulings.