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.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (40756)11/24/2000 7:03:16 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 436258
 
Heinz, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Questions 1 and 2 of Bush's appeal from the Florida Supreme Court decision which ordered Sec. Harris not to certify the election results before Sunday at 5:00 p.m. Those questions had to do with whether the Florida Supreme Court violated federal law by changing the procedure mandated by the Florida Legislature when they changed the deadline. Specifically, they want the parties to brief what the consequences would be if the U.S. Supreme Court were to hold that the ruling violated Title 3 US Code Section 5, which provides that Electors will be appointed according to the laws in effect on the date of the election.

Assuming that the Court rules in favor of Bush, then Sec. Harris can certify the votes as they stood on November 14, as she intended to do.

This shouldn't prejudice Gore, because Florida law provides that after the votes are certified, Gore can challenge them in court with a procedure called a contest, which would give him the right to make all the arguments he is making now. This is what Sec. Harris' lawyer argued, and it is the law.

But even though Gore would not suffer any legal prejudice, he would suffer political prejudice, and would be seen as the loser.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext