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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack T. Pearson who wrote (35704)	11/16/2000 1:17:48 AM
From: JRI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

OT Jack, I respectfully disagree. The circuit court ruled the other day that the Secretary of State has the discretion to accept/reject the handcounted ballots....She can not "arbitrarily" reject the handcounted ballots, per the Court. But how would you, legally, define if she acted with discretion or not OR if she acted arbitrary or not (in this case)? As I predicted here on Tuesday, she has carefully covered her behind (some) by taking certain "actions" to make her decision appear non-arbitrary, and (at least, a little) as if she used discretion. The court (and we) can not accurately look inside her head. Of course, her actions look partisan. But the court must rule based on facts, not suppositions. How can the court rule here that she did not (use discretion and was non-arbitrary)? The answer is: They can't (based on the evidence or law). The Democrats main argument (that her decision was arbitrary because she decided NOT to include the hand-counted ballots) can not hold up, because, by definition, they would be arguing that the only "proper" discretion would be if she decided in their favor (and included the handcounted ballots)! And last I checked, the word "discretion" still allows you a choice. Of course, the lower court and the State Supreme Court of Florida could STILL overturn her decision. But, in my view, if they would, it would not be based on the evidence or the law, but rather partisanship (All judges on Florida State Supreme Court were appointed by Democrat governor). That's OK, I suppose, because practically the entire thing (both sides) has been partisan anyway. The final outcome: I would call it a real toss up. This thing is sure to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. (I don't think it can go to the Federal Supreme Court; The Federal Supreme Court have always ruled that elections are a local/state matter). I think Mrs. Harris and the State of Florida have the law on their side, and the fact, in the past, judges have been loathe to get involved in the electorial process. The Democrats, in my view, have (on their side) the aforementioned fact that the judges are likely Democrat-leaning AND the fact that the gravity of the situation (this is not just any ol' election)- and this might call for some extra special care/consideration concerning looking at all ballots- legislative deadlines or not; legal powers or not. This could go either way. And don't forget, with the heavy "Israeli" vote..I don't think it is a sure thing that W. will win the absentee either... BTW- I am not advocating either side. Just recognizing this for what it is: A legal/partisan matter, not an issue of fairness...