Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (71561)	11/12/2000 4:34:54 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

Excellent post. I forwarded it to the RNC and my Senators. LoF

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (71561)	11/12/2000 4:37:36 PM
From: notblake	Respond to of 769667

great post. everyone should read it.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (71561)	11/12/2000 4:47:01 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 769667

Kudos, Brian!

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (71561)	11/12/2000 5:14:30 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It will be interesting to see whether the federal court applies strict scrutiny. I bet not. In order for an election law to be subject to strict scrutiny, the law must substantially burden the right to vote, which they seldom find. The Supreme Court recently held that a Hawaii law that completely banned write in voting was not subject to strict scrutiny. In any event, the equal protection clause asks whether the challenge law treats similarly situated persons differently. Here, the recount statute, like the recount statute recently signed by the Governor of Texas, treats simiarly situated persons similarly: It provides to any voter or candidate the right to request a recount within 72 hours of the election. I dont see the current US Supreme Court, with its distinct trend toward federalism, embracing the idea that federal courts are the right place to litigate the operation of state election laws. Now, if you had a more liberal Supreme Court, Bush might have a chance.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (71561)	11/12/2000 9:07:06 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment What a weak argument. The basis seems to be that since Gore requested some recounts and Bush neglected to ask for recounts, even though reminded that it may be to his advantage, that somehow Bush was wronged. It's not as if it were some secret, at least 50 million American's knew that hand recounts were to be requested and that W the Whiner needed to make his requests if he wanted any. Bush just expects the election to be handed to him with no effort on his part. TP