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: MasonS who wrote (949)	11/18/2000 9:52:09 AM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 3887

Emotionally I agree with you, but hope springs eternal that lml is correct.

To: MasonS who wrote (949)	11/18/2000 4:26:23 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Mason: I certainly understand where you're coming from, but too often many individuals who are less understanding of legal matters are quick to jump to conclusions regarding outcomes when a court acts in a certain manner that is not necessarily in light of a particular outcome. Here, we have the Supreme Court of Florida issuing an order enjoining the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the State election. Well, what is the LEGAL significance of that certification. Without doing any research I would intelligently speculate that it signifies some level of FINALITY, which means that any subsequent effort that would lead to a different result would require that such certification be overturned or reversed. Now, precedent to that order, the State Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from J. Lewis's ruling at the trial court level. Do you think the Court would want the Secretary of State to proceed with a certification in light of an obvious preference to first hear oral arguments, and not permit it to issue a ruling on the matter prior to such certification? Of course not. I can only think that when a court agrees to hear case it wants to take control of the case and prefer than any other matters relating the case and the rights of the parties not proceed until it has a chance to listen to the arguments and rule on the matter. IMHO, this is one reason why the Court issued the ruling that it did to OK the manual counting in the South Florida counties. Lastly, as I stated here earlier, I would think that the most likely outcome may very well be for the Court to instruct the Secretary of State to wait until the results of the manual counts are submitted to her before she is called upon to exercise her discretion. The Court is likely, IMHO, to also give her more specific guidance in the exercise of her discretion in light of the specific circumstances at play here. But I think its wrong and inconsistent with legal principles to conclude that a Court, which is the judicial branch of government, is going to issue a ruling that would have the effect of usurping the power granted a member of the executive branch by the State legislature. There's a separation of powers issue here to weigh in the analysis, and inconsistent with Al Gore's proclamation that the Secretary of State will not be the final arbiter of this election, she could very like be, but certainly in a manner consistent with Florida law as interpreted by the State's highest court.