On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:35:14AM -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote: > I kept wanting to ask about this article. I'm not signing up for NYT > usage.
That seems silly to me. They don't spam you or anything. Just sign up. Takes about 2 minutes. If giving out your email address bothers you, just sign up for a throwaway email at hotmail or spamgourmet or something. I'm talking about a case where 3 Federal Appeals Court judges have clearly made a decision in violation of the Constitution, and you are complaining about signing up for NYT access? Sheesh. > I understand your point Erik clearly but it is more complicated. The > president isn't going to read every ruling of all the judges he has > to nominate. Even the nominating committee, if there is such a group, > won't get to every ruling. (I'm starting to get too deep here without > a rope) I'm trying to say that a judge can make a hundred rulings that > are normal, and one that's bad for a political leaning. All it takes is one clearly bad ruling to show that the judge is bad. That should eliminate them from consideration. > And the opposing party will jump on that one ruling and hold it up as > a shining example of the judge's entire career. As they should. If a doctor has operated on 100 patients, but on one of them he he was drunk and killed the patient, is he a good doctor? Of course not. Some things are not simple mistakes, they show a general ineptness or negligence, or bias. > There may have been many other factors which 'forced' the judge's > ruling, but how are we the general public supposed to understand that? What's so hard to understand? I don't care why a judge made a biased decision -- that judge should not be in a position of power and responsibility. Doesn't it concern you that 3 Federal Appeals Court judges made a decision in clear violation of the Constitution? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
