Doug Kanter wrote:
"Careful study" - I think that's what's missing when people bitch loudly
about certain judicial nominees.

Sure. Most people who are hollering these days seem to think that the
majority of the Supreme Court is somehow 'liberal.'



.... And, I recently heard a commentator say that sometimes,
the justices refuse to overturn a law not because they agree with it, but
because they think it should be debated further in lower courts (and the
press & other public forums) so lawyers can return later with more clearly
defined arguments. I think this is brilliant, and it means the justices are
doing exactly what's right.


Agreed again... and this is one of the problems I have with 'Bush vs
Gore'... not only is it a dangerous precedent, one with little or no
underpinning in the Constitution, but they shouldn't have taken the case
before the lower court had finished. Besides, look what's happened since
then!

DSK