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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (466293)	1/26/2021 4:19:28 PM
From: Doo	2 Recommendations Recommended By JohnM Terry Maloney Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542940

I should say (and probably should have said when I started posting) that I am a lifelong liberal democrat from a family of the same from Kentucky (btw, your favorite whipping post state). I've lived in an extremely liberal state since the early '80s, however. With that said, I can't agree with your thought in the previous post you made that Renquist, Scalia and others (excluding Clarence Thomas) are dopes or somehow intellectually dishonest. Not yet clear to me about Gorsuch, Kavanagh, or Comey-Barrett, but I suspect they are not in the Clarence Thomas category. Of course, I'm not commenting on some of the clearly unqualified douches Trump nominated with help from McConnell and others. That's an entirely different topic, and it's a pretty new phenomenon as far as I can remember sitting here, right now. There are different judicial philosophies, some seem blatantly political but may not really be when the logic and reasoning is looked at closely. But those philosophies may well give a superficial appearance to the casual reader of news articles about decision something other than "judicial wisdom." I'm not really sure how statistics about 5-4 splits add much, but I do find what you posted interesting. I'm not sure who said or gave you the idea that the law was intended to always be crystal clear and incapable of two or many interpretations. ;) I don't think there's ever been a society that created such laws, and I don't think it's possible to do so although I'm sure many, if not all, who craft legislation try to do so. It's impossible to anticipate every single instance in which a law might apply or not apply at the time of its crafting. The same is true of judicial decisions based on common law or the constitution. Inevitably, one decision begets many more that probe the unstated or unarticulated proposition of the next case in line. Those cases come about through creative lawyering based on facts presented by clients. Of course, I'm not talking about frivolous suits like the 61 cases filed over the election.