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: Rambi who wrote (80081)	11/17/2000 4:44:58 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769667

I imagine that the only thing that has happened is that the court issued a stay to maintain the current status quo until they have time to resolve the merits of the appeal. This thing is like the weather in Iowa -- if you dont like it, just wait a minute. Now, will the Eleventh Circuit speak before the end of the day?

To: Rambi who wrote (80081)	11/17/2000 4:45:54 PM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

networks are gleefully pointing out that they are all Democratic appointments, except one who was joint Chiles-Bush appointed. It is only in keeping that the justices are impugned and smeared. That's what happened to Harris. It's their turn.

To: Rambi who wrote (80081)	11/17/2000 7:34:06 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

An amazing ruling. I've never heard of a court preventing an elected official from performing her duties before hand. Shouldn't they have instead ruled the action was lawful or unlawful after the fact? I thought the question the court was supposed to answer was directed toward an appeal, and whether Ms. Harris acted lawfully or not? Why would a court act on something they were never asked to act on? No one requested they stop the certification. Just wondering, not being a lawyer and all....