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 (495353)	7/15/2009 12:19:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575446

I didn't say "can't be used as precedent" Didn't set a precedent, can't be used as precedent. No difference. I said the Supremes said it "didn't" set a precedent. A lower court will of course ignore that and say "hey the supreme's did it this way". What you said was: "At the least the Supremes were wise enough to clearly state that the decision didn't set a precedent." They made no such statement. Nothing of the sort, nor COULD they make such a statement. Even the act of SAYING it might well set a precedent. What I did was to show you to be the idiot you are. Again. It really gets old setting someone who has a teenager mentality straight, day after day. If you don't know the basics, just don't comment on it. Great attempt at back pedaling, though...