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: i-node who wrote (485525)	6/3/2009 11:48:42 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574109

"Their function in life is to determine whether the lower court ruling was right or wrong not to merely kick the can down the road." Uh, Dave? By not disagreeing with the lower court ruling, they were saying they thought it was right. The Supremes do the same quite often.

To: i-node who wrote (485525)	6/4/2009 1:03:25 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574109

> At the same time, there is such a thing as racially/culturally biased testing. It was stipulated that the test was racially appropriate. No, it wasn't......you're lying again. And Cabranes as a 2nd Circuit judge, and as I understand it, had every right to write a dissenting opinion. No one said he didn't have every right. I just pointed out that he's a winger. And his point was a good one. She totally punted on the issue which is not what you want in a SC justice. You mean the panel, don't you? > They simply chose to agree with the lower court's ruling. That's not that unusual. Their function in life is to determine whether the lower court ruling was right or wrong not to merely kick the can down the road. Apparently, they found it reasonable. You are not in a position to decide otherwise.