|To: Biomaven who wrote (2203)||12/1/2000 10:50:19 PM|
|From: John Metcalf||Respond to of 40233|
|Thanks, Peter, for the link to the msn Supreme Court article, which I found interesting , but rather extreme, and vulgar in scope. This is not a contest for the Justices to demonstrate their command. They are lifers, and don't need any PR "spin" nor approval. Conversely, their characterization as strict constructionists is appropriate.|
The point about whether the Florida Supremes ruled on the basis of a State constitutional issue is surely understandable in a constructionist court. The question implied, to me, that Justices were questioning whether the Florida decision was conditioned on interpretation of the State Constitution, or totally baseless. In plain English, if the Court does not follow a State statute, it must have a higher principle, presumably that the statute is trumped by the State Constitution.
Of course, this is just based on the tapes, of which I heard about two-thirds. Also, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure you have a better one than I-:)
Back to the biotech valuation issue -- is there yet a consensus on which Presidential outcome will harm or benefit the industry?