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 : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7980)11/10/2000 12:04:14 AM
From: Uncle Frank  Respond to of 22706
 
The greatest irony is that in recent years I made all my presidential election decisions based on who might be appointed to the Supreme Court. Yet it might be the Supreme Court itself that determines if my vote matters...

Now we get to see if your evaluation of judges is as good as your evaluation of pongids.

Just don't let this be another ctxs.

cuf@tekboycouldn'tgothroughthattwice.com



To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7980)11/10/2000 12:06:32 AM
From: kumar  Respond to of 22706
 
I couldnt agree more with our chief nit-picker.

one only appreciates the value of a vote, when one is not permitted to vote or when one's vote does not count as equal.
-ckr



To: Mike Buckley who wrote (7980)11/10/2000 2:40:50 AM
From: EnricoPalazzo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22706
 
By this rationale, the courts couldn't even rule on issues regarding out and out vote fraud, then. Aren't courts the ultimate arbiter of the laws, even election laws?

I seem to have a much higher opinion of our legal system than most people, but it seems that a court ruling--no matter which way it goes--is the only way to confer any even minimal legitimacy on this.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News