No, they're not. The published opinions & the court cases themselves
are, but all the private discussions in the US Supreme court (draft
stuff, etc) are just that: private. I've listened to a couple of
their former clerks who've written books talk about the process (can't
remember the names) - you'd be amazed at the secrecy they manage to
maintain. Think of the past couple of weeks - they announced a
bunch of decisions. Most of those cases were months ago. In
between, the justices debated, wrote drafts, circulated them, etc.
Yet, not a word on what the decisions were until they actually
released them.
Of course, a good part of this is that the US Supremes actually do
write their own work in many cases. Decisions are made around
a big table in a conference room with only the 9 justices admitted.
No delegation whatsoever (unlike those bills that pass congress that
the congresscritters haven't even read, like the 4,000 odd pages of
tax code, etc.)
jeff
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Cole Tuininga wrote:
> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:40:25 -0400
> From: Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SOAPBOX (was Re:Password Testing)
>
> Derek Martin wrote:
> >
> > I also disapprove... but your
> > boss was within his rights. The systems and e-mail sent and received with
> > them all belong to your employer. I still don't like it.
>
> That was more or less my viewpoint. In all fairness, he didn't like
> having to do it either but had made the decision it was necessary.
>
> > I agree with you to a point, but I think it's important to make sure that
> > the person making such a request understands the implications of such
> > actions... disabling password security isn't merely not nice, as was the
> > case with your experience; it's a REALLY bad idea and could conceivably be
> > extremely dangerous, especially given that this is the supreme court of
> > the state of Vermont.
>
> True, and again I hope you are just trying to develop an interesting
> conversation rather believing I was implying the issue should not have
> been brought up. I fully advocate trying to convince Brad to find a way
> not to have to do this.
>
> > Would you want YOUR legal records being
> > intercepted?
>
> Actually, aren't all records of the supreme courts public? Of course,
> IANAL.
>
>
> --
> Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But I repeat myself. -Mark Twain
>
> Cole Tuininga
> Network Admin
> Code Energy, Inc
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (603) 766-2208
>
> **********************************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
> *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
> unsubscribe gnhlug
> **********************************************************
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9379 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
