🚀 go-pugleaf

> Russ Nelson writes:

>  > Pete Farmer writes:
>  > Russ, you can't just dismiss this with a swipe of your hand as an
>  > "unconstitutional taking."
>=20
> Sure I can.  You don't have to be a genius to be able to read the
> Constitution.

Legal scholars, take note.  Constitutional law is easy.

> Oh well.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  One
> doesn't say "Well, this is right, but it would be too expensive to
> hold to a strict moral code, so we're going to compromise our
> integrity for money."  That's the principles of thieves and whores.

Our system of law is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN linked to a moral code, but
to the Constitution and a body of legal precedent.  And thank goodness
for that.

I don't see anything in Jamie's excerpt of Judge Nelson's (no relation,
Russ, I presume -- heh) opinion on the Intel case indicating a
"compromise to integrity for money."  I see legal cites.  Are you
accusing him of such compromise?  Is he a thief and a whore, and if
appeals courts, up to the Supreme Court, uphold him, would they be
thieves and whores as well?

> I think my father put it best when he said "There's nothing the
> government can do that private enterprise can't do better."

And how would adjudication of disputes take place in the World of Russ?
What happens when my view of the "strict moral code" differs from =
yours?
Verdict goes to the highest bidder?

Sorry, Russ, but I see you as off the edge on this one.  You would
substitute a system of law for a system based on a "strict moral code."
No thanks.

Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. =
Farmer=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E-mail: =
pfarmer@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Voice:  =
+1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205=A0 Fax:    +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 WWW:    =
http://www.strategies-u.com