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: combjelly who wrote (485129)	6/2/2009 12:49:19 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574595

I get it. It is ok to legislate from the bench as long as you agree with the decision. Otherwise, they are an activist judge and to be despised... You don't understand the fundamentals here, CJ. It is NOT okay to legislate from the bench. But YOUR view of what is "legislation from the bench" is different from what people who understand the issues see it as. I don't care how much statute and precedent is cited in an opinion, you can't override such fundamental precepts in our Constitution as "equal protection". Merely citing "precedent" doesn't matter if, ultimately, the issue is unconstitutional. You seem very enamored of the opinion from the lower court, but you have to understand that even when court's opinions prove to be wrong, they provide their reasoning. Just citing precedent is insufficient, and merely reading the opinion is inadequate without knowing precisely what the logic is that ties the cited cases to the instant case. The constitutional issues in this case seem pretty clear to me.