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: Road Walker who wrote (384093)	5/13/2008 11:03:12 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575036

>> How come they expressly said "no precedent"? Who expressly said "no precedent"? I find no reference to the word "precedent" in the Court's decision. Besides, I'm not sure what you think it has do with anything. Whether there is "judicial activism" isn't determined by the existence of precedent, it is determined by whether any precedent that does exist is followed. If there is no precedent (often the reason for cert. to be granted), then the Court may well be making new law regardless of what the decision is. I believe Scalia adequately summed up the case a couple of weeks ago -- when THIS case comes asking for certiorari, you don't say, "No." That was not even an option from a logical standpoint; otherwise, who makes the decision? Thus, the Court had to make the decision and there is no independent analysis that is authoritative under the law. Dems didn't like the decision, Republicans did. What else is new?