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 (475972)	4/28/2009 4:43:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574350

Judges and juries interpret the law, not the perpetrators and their lawyers. Actually, when an attorney is asked to render a legal opinion, he or she is interpreting the law. Agreeably, he can't create new law; but it is definitely interpreting it. That is the entire point of a prior legal opinion -- to insure that the ensuing transaction is done in accordance with how the relevant statutory and case law is interpreted.

To: Road Walker who wrote (475972)	4/28/2009 5:07:31 PM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574350

"Judges and juries interpret the law, Judges and juries resolve conflict when trying a case where there is a dispute. Lots of entities are qualified to render a legal opinion and those opinions are often considered by a judge when deciding a case. There are experts in every field and there are subcategories of legal experts in every field, whether that is child custody, school law, real estate, business, crime and violence or whatever. In this case the most qualified experts on the topic were involved in the decision making process, The DOJ was and Congress. Congress does have the power to create laws and interpret laws and is considered the highest human authority to consider wrt whether something is a law or is not a law. The Supremes have the ability to settle a dispute constitutionally if congress is challenged in that way. The DOJ rendered expert opinion, congress rendered expert opinion and expressed approval which agreed with the prevailing legal sentiment of the time and this has not been disputed in front of a judge. Even if new laws are made which over rule those opinions, the new law could not be used to retroactively charge people who were following the law of a different time period. That happens in corrupt tyrannies but not in a nation of law and justice.