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: ManyMoose who wrote (66222)	5/16/2008 10:12:01 PM
From: DanD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543656

Ah, once again, we can but dream.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (66222)	5/16/2008 10:14:44 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543656

You started this conversation with the notion that the Bush SC appointees were put there because they adhered to the constitution. The point being that the other judges did not. There are two arguments to that point. The first, someone else mentioned, that the other SC justices adhere to the constitution. It's a requirement of the position. There is much to discuss here as to what that means. The second is that the very SC justices you consider the most upright upholders of the constitution did not do so in the very most important moment of their judicial lives.