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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: the_wheel who wrote (479651)	3/30/2012 2:39:57 PM
From: skinowski	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793565

Chess champs are folks who are capable - within their system of values and game rules - to calculate likely consequences of an event. This is, I'm sure, something they have in common with many Harvard law school grads - incl. cum laude grads and Supreme court Justices. Those folks may not be able to foresee what will happen 8 or 10 steps ahead, but they should be able to do some 3 or 4. Anyone reading the Constitution will notice that it is mostly about keeping the government under control - and safely tied down. Leaders and warlords and scholars don't like that. They think they can do better than a bunch of dead white dudes. They keep claiming that the Constitution is important to them, and it is - but not literally. It is important as a basis - and as a departure point. Regrettably, too often those departures are in the direction of weakening principles that work - and promoting ideas that don't. This week we saw a supreme Justice showing her belief that to refuse free (but in reality confiscated and redistributed) corn is laughable. Yep, corruption has many angles and incarnations. The Supremes are no longer independent scholars. Often, they act like political functionaries. They vote party lines. That's not good. That's why your Harvard law student test, instead of waking them up, might confuse them. It's a good list of questions; maybe it's worth sending it to them. Who knows. Every little bit helps?

To: the_wheel who wrote (479651)	3/30/2012 4:43:55 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793565

WH: Obama thinks Verrilli did a 'terrific job' by Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer President Obama has had a rough week, particularly since his signature health care legislation took a beating in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Although critics widely panned U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli's stutter-filled defense of the law, Obama is upbeat, according to Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest. "I feel confident in saying that the President shares the opinion of our White House staff that Mr. Verrilli did a terrific job in representing the interests of the government for the Supreme Court, but also representing the interests of the 2.5 million young adults who have health insurance coverage through their parent’s plan because of the Affordable Care Act," Earnest said, reminding reporters of Americans who have access to "free preventative coverage" because of the law. "That’s essentially the role that Mr. Verrilli was charged with and everyone at the White House was pleased with his performance," he concluded. As President George W. Bush might say, "Heckuva job, Verrilli!"