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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (17521)	11/1/1998 9:03:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 152472

RE: Texas courts No! The court in Marshall is the Court for the Eastern(?) District of Texas, a federal court for which the judges are appointed for life on good behavior. It is perfectly okay for Texas State judges to be ignorant and corrupt as long as they win their elections and don't get convicted, but Federal (Art. 3) judges cannot be removed without impeachment and conviction. They rarely are, but one federal judge who was impeached and convicted (maybe a frame up) was elected and is now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives (from Florida).

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (17521)	11/1/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

The 60 Minutes report was careful to emphasize that the justices of the Supreme Court of Texas are not individually corrupt. I know most of the justices on the Court and they are very honorable men and women. Moreover, our Texas judges are not ignorant people; they may not be as diverse in their legal backgrounds (particularly on civil law matters) as one might desire but calling them ignorant is pure hyperbole by persons who are ignoramuses. What has occurred at the Supreme Court is primarily a moving of the pendulum from the far left to the right of center--bringing some sanity back into a legal system that had gone a little haywire. What the report did not say is that most of the Texas decisions that have restricted punitive damage awards and made them more difficult to get are not anything different that what has been going on in other states, which do not elect judges. What is different is that the people of Texas have a voice in changing the direction of their justice system; if we had the system that Senator Ellis wants it would be a more appointive political system--but the politics would be hidden and secret, but just as political and we would still be trying to get rid of judges who had completely lost touch with the people. Running for office makes the judges humble; they have to go out every 4-6 years and ask regular folks to vote for them. As a result, in Texas, we have a judiciary which is not too separated from the people. The patent suit is in federal court with a judge appointed for life and not in the state system.