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 : AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (52)	11/21/2000 8:25:42 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119

LOL! I thought of three things I could say, but I won't. You'll have to remember it's Florida. That's all I can say.

To: Solon who wrote (52)	11/21/2000 9:18:52 AM
From: ratan lal	Respond to of 119

What a disgrace! Seven fools: drunk, dishonest, or stupid? Who could tell? I bet they were from Palm Beach and had trouble finding the right hole to punch in the butterfly ballot !

To: Solon who wrote (52)	11/21/2000 9:23:38 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 119

Your post deserves a better answer. You must remember that this is a more liberal court than the U.S. Supreme Court, and that they knew they were on World TV. Being on World TV can be a bit unsettling for almost anyone. My take on the Justices: All of them are of above average intelligence. They would not be there if they were not. One seemed extremely wise and competent, two seemed like they had this thing thought out, one appeared to have needed a nap, one seemed better suited for television judge duty, and one appeared to be a complete dolt. Percentage-wise, that's not far from the general population. Seriously. Don't be too quick to judge them as untrustworthy. (Pun intended) To me, untrustworthy would be a clear indication that they did not have the welfare of the voters of Florida at heart. I think they do. Secondly, as I'm sure you know, all of them have extensive experience sitting in front of lawyers and being in control of the room. I'll bet they all are smarter and wiser than some of them appeared. What will they do? I have ZERO legal training, and I could be TOTALLY WRONG... From the questions they asked, and what their concerns seemed to be, I think the court will allow the hand counts that are currently in progress, but they will not allow the "mid-game rule changes". They might say something specific about what a valid absentee vote is, and what a valid absentee military vote is. They will not order a statewide recount, even though Gore's lead attorney suggested that. I'd bet money that the Gore team assumed that would not happen, but they threw it out to try and cover their earlier legal rudeness when they suggested it in the first place. (You'll recall Boise backpedaling on that in his remarks.) They won't screw with Katherine Harris at all, except to more clearly define the date she will be allowed to certify the votes in this election. They will quite probably say something about the disparity between the certification cutoff date and the time required to do hand counts, but it will only be some sort of clarification of any ambiguity in the law, and not "new" law. They can't rewrite Florida law other than to clarify stuff that already exists, because if they do, they know they will be violating the Constitutional rights of all the voters in Florida by changing the status of those voters as a result of any such new laws. That would take this to a federal level. If all they do is make current Florida law make more sense and be easier to actually apply, that's actually going along with the U.S. Supreme Court, as I understand it. Next, I think the votes will be counted, and the winner of Florida will assume the status of president-elect. And then, whoever it is will have to keep his ass real clean for the next 2 years at least. <G>