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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (820)	11/17/2000 9:57:03 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Art: Re: "Appellate courts deal in facts and the law. They generally do not dispute the facts that have been ruled on in a lower court. Here the facts are not in dispute." May I ask what's your point? You want to argue with me on the definition of "deal?" You challenge my assertion that high courts focus on the legal issues before them rather than the facts of the case, but then go on to repeat my original premise that such factual matters are typically address by the lower court. So are you just responding to me to make a argument of no substance? Are you trained in law? Do you really understand the legal process? Do you possess the logic of a reasonable person? I ask because you first three sentences to me challenge my comment to you, but then agree with me. I apologize if I'm confused, or maybe its you. No one disputes that the vote is so close that even a slight error can change the outcome. Al, this is a gross generalizations of the facts of the matter. Yes, the vote is close, but what do you mean by "slight error." What slight error? The slight error committed by a canvassing board member in determining whether a hanging chad or impregnated chad, or a ballot with Homer Simpson as a write-in candidade was intended as a vote for Al Gore? Please expand on your thought process, which appears a bit cloudy. One legal point that can be challenged is whether, given the closeness of the vote, the discretion exercised by the Secretary of State was prejudicial. This issue is not before the court. As I suggested to another poster you should get your facts straight before you launch your arguments. For starters, I suggest you read the Democrat's amended brief filed with J. Lewis in the matter he ruled on this morning. Nowhere in the brief do the petitioner and intervenors assert prejudice on the part of the Secretary of Short. In short, Al, the matter before the Supreme Court is whether or not she exercised her discretion in accordance with Florida law, and possibly whether J. Lewis's ruling was consistent therewith. That is a question which, if not answered by the appellate court No, Al, the Court will not answer this issue that is obviously a nagging one to you. Lemme ask you, does the prejudice at the local canvassing board level nag you as well? [This issue] will linger in the mind of many citizens throughout the country, and will render Bush (if he wins because of this) a weak president condemned to one term of virtually no accomplishments whatsoever. Al, I certainly appreciate your point here, but again, lemme ask you, how do feel on this issue if the shoe is on the other foot, that is, if the inherent bias and prejudice at the local canvassing board level leads to a Gore victory, what kind of presidency do you think Al Gore would have? In short, Al, I hear your arguments, and they are certainly partisan, and be argued on either side of the aisle. Though I support a Bush presidency I at least try to take an objective approach to the law and the legal arguments presented by this interesting case. You do not. Your arguments are weak because the counter argument is just as potent. It is clear that probably 95 percent of the people in Florida are either for Gore or Bush. So if you want a truly non-partisan participation here by elected officials whether it be at the local or state level, you're gonna have to eliminate practically the entire State of Florida, and that's obviously not practicable.