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: one_less who wrote (581189)	8/16/2010 12:02:01 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576357

>> 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. Yes, I just don't know how you get around it. The point on the impartiality, IMO, is not whether a judge is a decent person or generally independent with respect to an issue. It is whether he has an unbreakable emotional tie. Here's an example: When Obama was running for president, a very large percentage of the black vote went to him, which you would expect, as a point of pride. However, numerous black Republicans have publicly stated that while they uphold conservative values, they voted for Obama -- knowing what he represented. There is even some suspicion Condoleeza Rice may have voted for him. But we know of strong conservatives like Colin Powell as well as other lesser known ones like the black business reporter on Fox Business Channel, who has criticized Obama heavily yet publicly stated he voted for him BECAUSE he was black. These are all fine people who could not separate themselves emotionally from their blackness (understandably). This is the same rationale that led to OJ being acquitted. At the bottom line, a judge must be able to separate himself emotionally from his homosexuality, else, he should be recusing himself from his involvement. I don't know of a single homosexual who doesn't support "gay marriage". So, how could we reasonably expect this homosexual to think differently about it? We couldn't. He should have been disqualified from the proceeding.