From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 02:38 PM 2/21/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: > >See, one of the same judges that "shot it down" on what you call a > >technicality said that the plantiffs (the people seeking to stop the > >marriages) would probably win on their merrits. > > > >This isn't a case of judicial activism using symantics to strike down > >something they disagree with, > > The above does not demonstrate at all the judge's beliefs. > > Rather it seems far more likely that the judge is conceding that he will > have to issue a ruling that he personally disagrees with, and thus > prolonged the inevitable on a technicality. > > A semicolon. Really. Yes, a semicolon, really. I find what you chose to snip very telling. You even cut one of my sentences in half to not include a vrey important point: That the judge did not have the authority to enforce the order as it was written. You don't want a real discussion of the facts, you just want to polarize people with an "us against them" mentality, rather than trying to disolve those barriers with a productive discussion. I've heard enough. Both you and The Fool are too stuborn to have a discussion with. I've tried to encourage both of you to try to be more rational and reasonable in discussions, but to no avail. > Did anyone say "due process" around here? Did someone say that the order, as it was written, was something a judge did not have the authority to order? Oh, yeah, one of the judges did! The order got its due process and it was struck down on genuine legal grounds. If the plantiffs submit a properly worded order and it is summarily struck down by judges, *then* I might agree that it's judicial activism, but until that happens, I'm tired of listening to your rhetoric. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
