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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (7719)	10/4/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>>The balance of your comments seem confused. Well, at least I have balance in my comments. You, however, are extremely obtuse, hence your confusion. >>Your next pearl of wisdom.. "Clinton is now left with basically the OJ defense, a call to the rabble and jury nullification," clearly shows you're lack of belief in the system of justice we have, which you double talk to use to attack the President. Rable indeed.. No. It clearly shows that I do have a belief in our system of justice precisely because it provides for the rule of law and is insulated from popular insult. What don't you understand about that precept? Why are Clinton and cronies assaulting that system by their unrelenting attacks and their unprecedented campaign of public defamation of those entrusted to pursue justice and those who are their witnesses? Could it be because the corrupt have no hope if the issue remains the province of just the law and facts? God forbid that the truth actually prevail in Clinton nation. >>so you don't have faith in the common man or the will of the people! Too bad. Sure I do, after all, the majority voted against Clinton in both his non-mandate plurality wins. Did the FF include impeachment in the Constitution because they had no faith in the common man? Did the FF decide on an electoral system for a reason? How about all recorded history. Too bad for you that the FF were not so foolish to expect the hoi polloi to decide legal issues by plebiscite as you seem to wish. That would be mobocracy especially in a country where most people can't name their congressmen and the Dem voters are the least informed of groups. >>Next, you're so quick to pontificate on what you didn't read accurately. I said ".. that was one of the intentions of the founding fathers... to allow and promote a continuing argument and struggle to determine what justice should be over time (because justice is not and never will be a fixed and absolute set of conditions)." That's not their design, that's the human condition. Their design was directed against that impulse and to create a system where the Constitution was paramount and justice did not depend on the caprice of the times. Their very real purpose of a written constitution was to establish a fundamental and paramount law that would limit government's inevitable drift towards tyranny, whether of the powerful few or of the majority. >>I didn't say anything about judicial review of congress, but lets go there since you brought it up. Well, what's this: "At the same time continuing power of final interpretation through argument and vote is given to the judicial branch". You brought up the branches and stated that the judiciary has the final say. What else could it mean? Don't blame the reader because your writing is so obtuse that it may have obscured an actual thought. Which is wrong, btw. which (thank you) confirms my earlier statement which you argued against that the Supreme Court has established itself as the interpreter of the Constitution. You stated that the courts have the final say and I correct you again, stating that the people's body, Congress does because any SC decision can be overturned by either legislation or amendment in the case of Constitutional issues. The key word is "final". I guess it depends on what your definition of "final" is. Just like your President. Sheesh. >>Zoltan, didn't you change your name from what you originally used on SI? Yes I did. For copyright reasons. People were directed to my posts by doing "Duncan Idaho" internet searches. I ran you off the Cisco thread last Fall when you were ridiculously claiming that the US was like Japan and that you knew because you had worked there. I stated then that just because you obviously frequent the Home of the Whopper, that doesn't make you the Burger King. Hence my allusion to your trademark whoppers in my precedent post.