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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonkie who wrote (115931)12/14/2000 1:54:50 PM
From: zx  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
>>>if they would have made a consistant reproducible vote counting standard from the bench the us supremes would have supported it 6 to 3<<<
For the last time and this time I will try to be a little clearer. The Florida State Legislature makes the laws in Florida. The law said it is up to the canvassing boards to decide whether a vote is legitimate or not. If the Fla SC had tried to set the standards concerning what to count as a vote the US SC would have ruled they were writing laws from the bench.

It is apparent now that whatever they had ruled that Rehnquist's and his 4 henchmen would have overuled them. The second ruling of the Fla SC followed exactly the US SC's first ruling of what they are allowed to do.

So what if it's by the law.

for the last time===

if the florida supreme court would have written a fair, consistant, reproducable law from the bench, the supreme court would have supported it 6 to 3.
it was the unequal protection that caused a 7 to 2 split.

the supremes would not let the lesser supremes get away with vague, partial vote recounting.
they would have supported fair recounting- imo.
they do have the power to make rulings that can act like laws, but can be called something else.
courts had the power to do the recounts right.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext