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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (27980)	1/11/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

penni, You said that rather well, thank you. But you just blew your cover - don't go telling us again that you can't do political discussions! If you tell us that you don't want to, though, I'll understand. I don't really want to either, but there's a small part of me (which remains despite numerous attempts to eliminate it) that can't see a polar opinion walk by without wanting to step on it. Perhaps too much time in the tropics creates an aversion to poles. One day I'll learn to ignore them, as you generally do, and will doubtless be much happier for it. Steve

To: Rambi who wrote (27980)	1/12/1999 1:56:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Excellent Analysis The Supreme Court judges are merely fallible people. They decide hundreds of cases every year. In those times, the judges actually rode circuit and sat in circuit courts out in the woods. American (and English law) is based on the remembered and digested opinions of the past. The principle of stare decisis says not to change an opinion without need, in the interest of stability at the expense of justice. Lower courts (CA, DC) are bound by the opinions (not the dicta) of the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is unbound, and can change every prior decision to conform with their interpretations of the Constitutional documents themselves. They are not bound by prior opinions or dicta of earlier Supreme Courts. There is a very strange fact that once a law or decision is reversed by later authority it is not removed from the books. It remains available for resurrection on demand, unless Congress or a Legislature amends and removes the offensive act, or the court order is specifically amended. As a result, shameful opinions remain in apparent authority although they violate current interpretations of the law. Nothing is stamped on the superceded decision -- NO LONGER VALID -- Reversed <date>. One has to Shepardize the case -- no one does it for you. Famous authorities have survived long after their props were knocked out from under them by other courts, because no one notices with pernicious results. To pull up ancient bloopers merely confuses the issue. Nothing that is forgotten, ridiculous, or obsolete is the law. The law is based on reason, not absurdity.