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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (17595)	11/18/2000 10:15:24 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 65232

"My legal sources say that when a state's presidential vote is in doubt, federal law (U.S. Code Title 3, Sec. 2) gives a state legislature the discretion to appoint electors. Republicans dominate the Florida assembly, 77-43, and the state senate, 25-15. They could assert that when the executive branch and courts disagree, or when there are two different vote counts, the legislature gets the final say. Mr. Bush would get the electors. This would take political nerve, because Democrats would shout that the GOP is defying the law. But Democratic judges who overreach their power are no less political than elected Republicans who assert theirs." opinionjournal.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (17595)	11/18/2000 10:41:20 AM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 65232

As I think about the Supreme Court's action, I can't imagine them forcing the Sec of State to include the selective hand recounts. They may encourage her to count them, but they have to give her some discretion, as a public elected official, to make a decision as to whether the process was fair, just, necessary, etc. Otherwise, they may just as well abolish her job and do it themselves. They will probably just reiterate the earlier decision, and say she can not be arbitrary in her decision. It also seems completely reasonable for her to say that she is going to treat every county the same, and unless they can prove that there was a problem with the voting machines, she will go with the mechanical recount across the entire state, instead of the more ambiguous hand recount in selected democratic counties. In fact, if she were to do anything other than this, she could be accused of being arbitrary. Again, I can't imagine the court forcing her to admit hand recounts from only 2-3 democratic counties, when the court is not in a position to know how the recount process is proceeding. The more I think about this, the more I think it will be a non-issue, and Bush will be certified.