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 (580988)	8/14/2010 6:31:09 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576167

"It isn't a rumor; he is openly gay." Uh, no. It is only a rumor. Apparently started by a blogger who saw a picture of him. But, if that is your standard of proof... " The important point is whether the judge can be impartial; an openly gay judge cannot conceivably be impartial on this issue." He isn't openly gay. But, even if he was, why can't he be impartial? Oh, because you say so...

To: i-node who wrote (580988)	8/16/2010 8:31:43 AM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1576167

You have a tendency toward drawing analogies where none exists. Yep. CJ's a dumbass.

To: i-node who wrote (580988)	8/16/2010 11:34:46 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576167

The problem of finding an impartial judge is inherent in the issue. Can any judge be impartial on this issue or on any issue where personal preference or individual circumstance defines what is right in juxtaposition with cultural mores? Attempts to regulate personal behavior on moral or religious grounds through sumptuary law with respect to religion, sexual preference, euthanasia, right to life, gambling, drugs and alcohol etc in general miss the target. Even more it results in oppression of certain sections of society, usually the poor and working class. The target should not be attempts to bring the masses under control of the social order but to correct injustice. Criminal laws should target the harm done rather than offense perceived. These issues should never have been allowed into the litigious network of society but there is where they are and we'd probably need a constitutional convention to change that fact.