gmac Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/0...8/0457259.shtml I'm curious how political is this in the states? Does the SEC have real teeth. I mean I was puzzled how a change of president gets microsoft an easier time? In the UK despite having a massive majority the government do ultimately answer to parliament and the electorate but they seem to forget that most of the time. The US has the toughest anti trust laws in the world but they don't seem to do much good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/0...8/0457259.shtml I'm curious how political is this in the states? Does the SEC have real teeth. I mean I was puzzled how a change of president gets microsoft an easier time? In the UK despite having a massive majority the government do ultimately answer to parliament and the electorate but they seem to forget that most of the time. The US has the toughest anti trust laws in the world but they don't seem to do much good. Sorry, changing presidents does not give microsoft or anyone else an easier or harder time. You're falling for the media hype stuff. A court case is not connected to terms of office. Cases can run for years. Unfortunately, judges are not held accountable by anyone. The liberal bench actually believes that drifting away from any law directive or the US Constitution is somehow "fair". The US Judiciary has failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngmug Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 From what I remember, the SEC usually does a decent investigation. The concern is how the judge in the case (assuming the SEC finds something worth a case) will act. If the SEC does find enough to bring a case we can only hope for a judge that will act fairly. Like Ixthusdan wrote, it is not the change of a president. Federal circuit judges have a life appointment, so they don't really care who is in office. The difficulty is finding a judge that actually is connected to the reality of the law and is not so inclined to divine something out of a law that has no basis to the law itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmpatrick Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 (edited) Does the SEC have real teeth. Enough teeth to put Martha Stewart away Re the judge in the MS antitrust case - he did an admirable job and ordered the breakup of MS. When the new administration came in the case was still pending on appeal and the US Justice Dept which prosecuted the case and is under the controll of the President, got the case transfered to another judge and gave them a sweetheart settlement which they continue to violate w/o any consequences. Edited March 10, 2004 by pmpatrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted March 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Thanks, I was curious. I don't personally know any americans to get a viewpoint from-at least nor as erudite as you all seem to be. You do tend to get the impression from the media that there is no real political debate in the US and its all yaboo politics with money mattering more than anything else. In the UK just now there are proposals to introduce a politically selected supreme court along US lines, which is rather worrying. Our court system is far from perfact but at least they do act as an effective check on government. Cynically this might be the reason behind the supposed reform as the present and previous home secretaries have both been checked by the law lords for exceeding their authority. The bill has just been bounced back to the commons by the lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzatch Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 How do you select your highest judges now? Honest question since I just don't know. Since our supreme court is selected for life there really is no way to tell what judges will be replaced by what president. Approval by congress is a nice check system for federal judges, but yes it does get political when it is thought that judges can change law by a new interpretation of an old one. That is not really their job. And since no judge (even the supreme court) can change anouther judges dicision untill its officially brought before them it sometimes takes quite a while for a "rogue" judge to be brought under controle. I haven't heard of and British judges ( the local county court variety) reinterpreting your laws like they do in a few of ours. Maybe we should be moving towards your legal system instead. Fought a war to get away from you only to find out you were right in the end. DAMN!!!! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted March 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 "I haven't heard of and British judges ( the local county court variety) reinterpreting your laws like they do in a few of ours. Maybe we should be moving towards your legal system instead." In the English system the legislature make the law and the judges apply i.e. interpret it sometimes by way of a test case to set precedents which will set the tone for future judgements. Sometimes badly written laws need to be clarified. It starts getting confusing because we have common law, statute law and now EEC law. Then again I'm not English so we have Scots law which differs in some significant areas, for instance we have not proven verdicts which you don't get elsewhere and owes more to statute. I hadn't quite appreciated the different attitudes between UK and US on these kinds of topics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 We also have constitutional law! Erm, and I 'think' this defines how we select the law lords ?? Fought a war to get away from you only to find out you were right in the end. DAMN!!!! hehe, did YOU. I saw it on MDKUSERS that apparently only 1/3 of Americans supported the revolution with 1/3 being undecided and 1/3 against it. So your ancestors stand a good chance of NOT being for it :D But the real reason i ask that is ... wouldn't that be unconstiutuional :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzatch Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 None of my ancestors were even here at the time. We left revolutions, famine and unemployment back on the European continent at later dates. Not much later mind you. I think it was even less than 1/3 support for the revolution. It was the middle 1/3 of undecideds that let it happen from inaction that made the difference. And your right a revolution with only 1/3 support would be unconstitutional. The problem was we had no constitution yet. Revolution with so little support might be unconstitutional but secession would be constitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Microsoft and SCO: FUD Brothers http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1548132,00.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1on1 Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/0...8/0457259.shtml I'm curious how political is this in the states? Does the SEC have real teeth. I mean I was puzzled how a change of president gets microsoft an easier time? In the UK despite having a massive majority the government do ultimately answer to parliament and the electorate but they seem to forget that most of the time. The US has the toughest anti trust laws in the world but they don't seem to do much good. I mean I was puzzled how a change of president gets microsoft an easier time? Don't fall for the liberal media BS...this has nothing to do with how the SEC works. BTW, I was suggesting this very thing about M$ months ago. Bill Gates needs to spend some time in prison. I would love that...the richest man in the world behind bars. Think that would send a message to people? :woops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzatch Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 The Martha Stewert case has both Michel Jackson and Bill Gates shaking in their boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.