SI
SI
discoversearch

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
The Boxing Ring Revived
An SI Board Since October 2001
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
7720 16 0
Emcee:  Neocon Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 40 | Next 40 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
6760<i> I don't know of a single constitutional amendment that was enactedLane3-7/9/2003
6759I've been without my computer for a couple of days while it made a trip to DLane3-7/9/2003
6758<i> I don't get why you don't get that it's the SC's jThe Philosopher-7/9/2003
6757In practice most affirmative action seems to amount to preferences. Either direTimF-7/9/2003
6756<i>I would particularly see as incorrect court mandated affirmative actionLane3-7/9/2003
6755<i> if the SC is going to take on legislative and executive duties along wLane3-7/9/2003
6754I think just about any other approach would have been better, or more to the poiTimF-7/9/2003
6753<i> If your questions is where is it that we get those rights, well,The Philosopher-7/9/2003
6752<i>I don't see how racial preferences for historically disadvantaged rLane3-7/9/2003
6751Chris, I'm one of those people who have raised their right hands and sworn tLane3-7/9/2003
6750Hi, CR. It's been a long time. Good to hear from you.Lane3-7/9/2003
6749<b><i>legislatures were more thoughtful in what they did.</b>&Constant Reader-7/9/2003
6748I agree with you about O'Connor's predeliction to substitute political fThe Philosopher-7/9/2003
6747<I> Seems to me that what we call judicial activism is very much a functioTimF-7/9/2003
6746That was interesting, something that had actually occurred to me before briefly Lane3-7/9/2003
6745I thought the the column on Justice O'Connor would resonate with you. The PLane3-7/9/2003
6744Science historians ponder naming 'enemies' in science literature In a peTimF-7/7/2003
6743Pretty good article. I agree with a lot of it but probably not the part about aTimF-7/7/2003
6742From the spin in this article, I assume that poll takers don't ask whether pLane3-7/7/2003
6741I suppose it's a matter of how you view human nature. I think you hit the kThe Philosopher-7/4/2003
6740I still think there's a better chance of getting intellectual and any other Lane3-7/4/2003
6739<i>they worry more about their legacies than sucking up to passive voThe Philosopher-7/4/2003
6738I don't disagree with you, I'm just think that SC judges have at least aLane3-7/4/2003
6737Thirty years ago I might have agreed with you. But when you look at the processThe Philosopher-7/4/2003
6736I have little confidence in either. I suppose, if forced to choose, I would havLane3-7/4/2003
6735Quote for the day: "America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, bThe Philosopher-7/4/2003
6734Hew's right, you know. The problem with the Constitution is that it doesn&#The Philosopher-7/4/2003
6733I can see both sides of the which-is-worse argument. Isn't that a sad stateLane3-7/4/2003
6732<i> Congress just offends me more and the SC just offends you more. Seems TimF-7/4/2003
6731A pretty good take on the matter. The default position is to be cautious in alteNeocon-7/4/2003
6730<i>That's why we the founding fathers gave us the Supremes, who aThe Philosopher-7/3/2003
6729I just saw an editorial in today's Post that remarked about the 'tude ofLane3-7/3/2003
6728<i>the "wholesale" problem with lifting the legal and social cenLane3-7/3/2003
6727The SC is part of "the Feds". If they can make any decision they wantTimF-7/3/2003
6726<i>For another it would leave the states with no power because while the fLane3-7/3/2003
6725<i>The contrary, it appears, would have to be their committing an act of tLane3-7/3/2003
6724Springfield vs. Shelbyville Gay marriage, incest, and The Simpsons. nationalrevTimF-7/3/2003
6723I think the 9th amendment was intended to discourage the government from controlTimF-7/3/2003
6722Acouple of interesting letters at andrewsullivan.com CONCEDING DEFEAT: You'TimF-7/3/2003
6721I look forward to your treatise on the meaning of the 9th amendment! If you canThe Philosopher-7/3/2003
Previous 40 | Next 40 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News