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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stan s. who wrote (1383)	9/1/1998 11:51:00 AM
From: Rainy_Day_Woman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Stan: I did not take a cheap shot or intentionally miss the point. When you use such verbage as "Jones case", "such cases" and "frivolous cases" in close correlation, I made an association. I still the implication was the Jones case is a frivolous case. Any suit can be filed as an irritation and many are. Many are polically motivated, I agree. Suits are not black or white, but grey areas to be determined by law. There can be many motives. Does that mean they can't be heard or contain less merit? Do the 'important' people, people dealing with life and death issues get special privledges? Don't people with power and money have an edge already in jurisdiction? I'm sorry you viewed my post as a continuation of the partisan crap. Perhaps you missed the point. sf

To: stan s. who wrote (1383)	9/1/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The decision to allow the Jones case to go forward while he's president does in fact set the stage for politically motivated nuisance suits. In that regard, it can be viewed as a bad precedent. However, the court ruled that a worse precedent gets set when you delay justice or have an individual hide behind his power as president to avoid litigation. The Supreme took the lesser of two evils.