SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TraderGreg who wrote (2368)11/16/2000 9:51:10 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) of 6710
 
>>It is its inability to produce finality without multiple iterations.<<

Hey, I resemble that remark! -g-

Lawyers, litigation, and legalese are irritating, I agree. But to understand the legal system you really need to sit across a desk from a man or a woman who wants a result despite the fact that there is no legal justification for it, and is willing to pay you lots and lots of money to give it a try.

>>On the one hand, they did not order the counts to stop, but then again, they did not say the counts should continue.<<

Yep. So the parties are in the same position they were before the Court ruled and will have to deal with the mess and then after the Dems have paid many thousands of dollars for the recounts and the canvassing boards have spent many hundreds of hours on the recounts, the State Supreme Court may affirm Ms. Harris' exercise of discretion. I would think they probably would, although I can't say that with any confidence until I've read the letter.

The way the caselaw goes is something like this: "We might not have decided this issue the same way, but it's not our decision to make, it's hers. And as long as she based it on the facts and the law, we are not going to second-guess her."
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext