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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (118659)	11/20/2000 8:08:42 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "After the Govenor signs it into law, the court must use that as the final word" No the Court is not required to use it as the final word because they say what the final word is. That's the problem. The Court can say the law means anything they want to say it says and no one can do anything about it short of impeachment. That's the problem. BTW, it turns out that the P4 was a little better at floating point than you claimed when you said it performed worse than a 500MHz Celeron. Turned out it is the fastest integer processor on the planet by a good sight and within 6% of the very top of the line 64 bit Alpha in floating point. Better luck next time....fool :-) EP

To: pgerassi who wrote (118659)	11/21/2000 1:24:59 AM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I heard the supreme court hearings in full today. My impression is that the justices were looking for a way to have the ballots counted (if they do not deny the elctoral votes of florida due to Federla timing. Based on my observation, I firmly believe that they will permit the ballots to be counted by hand since there is enough time for them to do so and be certified long before the December 12 drop dead date. I dont think that the legislature or the Governor can make any changes to the law to be effective retractively. So the supreme court will be the final arbiter of whether hand counting will be permitted or not. Remember this law was not passed by the current legislature. So they cant decide what the previous legislature meant by the words they put into law. Only the courts have that jurisdiction to go back to the text behind the law to see if they can figure out the INTENT of the law which is not clear and is hence the subject of present action.