rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com (01/12/91)
Pat, lighten up a bit. I am one not to ever advocate violence
unless it's a last resort (self-defense, etc.). My comment should not
have been construed the way it was. I merely continue to express my
indignation toward that black-robed monarch.
By the way, I agree with you on the suggestion that the
Not-so-Honorable Judge may indeed have been prejudiced in some way.
Just how the h*** did he get to be so much of a legislator anyway? I
thought Congress and the state legislatures were those empowered to
MAKE laws, and judges INTERPRETED them. Obviously, I'm wrong. Oh well,
it's not like it hasn't been happening for years anyway.
Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL.cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/13/91)
Judge Greene gets to interpret the law, and he interpreted the law with regard to the antitrust violations committed by AT&T. He was responding to the Attorney General of the U.S., who proposed the settlement in the first place -- and who gave HIM the right to make the law? Judge Greene-bashing is not only old hat, it's fruitless. I should add that in my discussions with Judge Greene's staff (I was a staffer for the CA Legislature for eight years in the area of telecom policy), I found them more knowledgeable than any legislator or congressional staff (with the possible exception of the OTA) with whom I came into contact. Bob Jacobson