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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (651)12/7/2000 8:53:00 PM
From: mph  Read Replies (2) of 14610
 
It depends on whether Sauls' legal analysis is upheld.

He did not review the ballots themselves because
he determined that the plaintiff did not make the
requisite threshold showing. Had he done so, review
of the ballots would be the next step.

I'm not troubled by the fact that the court did not review
them because I think it's correct that a threshold showing of some kind must be made.

The question is whether Sauls applied the right standard,
and I'm not sure what the answer is as I haven't studied that issue in enough detail.

Suffice to say that if the FSC determines that the wrong standard was used, it will remand to Sauls to reconsider in light of the "correct" standard. Since Sauls appears to be committed to his position, he will then "re-evaluate" the evidence based on the "correct" standard and again rule in favor of Bush.

JMO!
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News