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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (18204)	11/20/2000 5:47:29 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

I thought FL SupCourt seemed like lightweights they seemed more interested in pragmatism than law they seemed to ask lawyers for explaining the FL state law they seemed unconconcerned about shifting local vote chad criteria they seemed only minorly concerned with equitable criteria applied statewide one seemed too concerned about other state laws a few seemed to be operating mentally at 7 miles per hour unimpressed they all seemed to totally miss the distinction between certifying a vote then contesting it they seem to be potential Gore tools to the sham process THEY SEEMED TO ACT MORE LIKE A POLITICAL BODY THAN LEGAL BODY they guys are gonna allow hand recounts to continue they will be giving deadlines for the process they probably will NOT offer chad criteria they talked consistently about HOW to include recounts unimpressed but the handjob recount is not proceeding accoring to Gore's hopes so far PalmBeach +3 Bush after 50% precincts so far Broward +90 Gore after 55% and Dade +12 Gore real early but with military overseas absentees opened up we may see another +400 for Bush what a joke / Jim

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (18204)	11/20/2000 5:54:57 PM
From: BRANDYBGOOD	Respond to of 65232

They needed to speak to these justices more from the heart and less from the head. The Florida supreme court is just that. A court. All of the passion in the world will not change anything. You must have a viable argument of the law. They will decide what they decide based upon law precedent. Unless you have an argument based upon law and precedent to change the law, it will not be changed. The minutae comes down to the law, and the precedents whereupon it can be changed. They can decide what they will, they have that constitutionally based ability, but it will be well documented and argued. The key word here is argued. How long will that take? Your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's. In the mean time, I have taken steps to protect my long market positions. It seems the only wise thing to do in the circumstances. B@whenwillwehaveapresidentagainanyway