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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (1741)	11/21/2000 1:02:48 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

Kangaroo Court to Jump for Gore? Dan Frisa Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2000 Given its history as an activist liberal court and its display of blatant bias evidenced in its questions yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court has only added to the growing lack of faith in our judicial system. For starters, Chief Judge Charles Wells is a financial contributor to the Clinton-Gore campaign. This is unbelievable! The cannons of judicial ethics counsel that he really ought to have recused himself. But there he was, black robes and all, making clearly partisan assumptions, such as "when the hand-counted votes are tallied, will Bush have a chance to challenge them?" Say what? This was not a hypothetical question intended to elicit legal theory but, rather, demonstrated his preconceived belief that Gore will win enough votes in the hand count. What about the presumption that the outcome cannot be known until after the votes have been counted? So much for impartiality! And how about the question from Justice Barbara Pariente, to Bush attorney Carvin, inquiring as to what Texas law says on the issue of hand counts? What, pray tell, was the purpose of that inquiry if not to inject a political slap at Governor Bush? Why not ask about Tennessee or Arkansas law? Of course, bearing in mind that every one of the seven justices were named to the bench by Democrat governors, it perhaps shouldn’t be so very surprising that bias and favoritism would be so introduced into the case. What’s more, Dexter Douglass, the Florida lawyer and Democrat activist who recommended the appointment of five of the seven judges to the high court, was sitting right in the front row of the courtroom yesterday - with the Gore lawyers – as if to ‘remind’ them how they came to find themselves where they sat. "They'll know I'm at the table," Mr. Douglass boasted to the New York Times recently about his Gore role before the Supreme Court today. Some have suggested this scene is eerily reminiscent of the congressional hearing scene in "The Godfather," where a relative of the star witness was flown in from Sicily and sat with Michael Corleone in the front row, to send a message of intimidation, which resulted in the desired outcome. We very well may see the court stay true to its history of overstepping its constitutional authority by once again acting as if it were the legislature. On previous occasions this is exactly the role it has assumed for itself, as when it repeatedly struck down, on rather flimsy legal grounds, various conservative referenda passed by the legislature, thereby thwarting the will of the people’s representatives and preventing a statewide vote. A fair reading of Florida election statutes, which are clear and unambiguous, should result in a lifting of the injunction ordering the Secretary of State to withhold final certification of George W. Bush as winner of the state, because the judiciary – as a co-equal branch of government – is constitutionally and morally compelled to apply the law as written. What are the odds this will happen? Hard to say, because normally one would be hard put to predict the outcome of an appeal based solely on questions asked from the bench during such a judicial hearing. Yet given the highly partisan background and pedigree of this court, it seems more likely than not that the Florida Supreme Court is poised to bend over backward to give every possible advantage to the Gore campaign by allowing more time to hunt, er ... count, for more Gore votes, with a standard so weak and subjective as to be meaningless. There are still other cards to be played, even should the court so rule. The secretary of state could simply ignore the questionable injunction and act per her statutory authority and certify the election now. The Florida legislature has the prerogative, under the U.S. Constitution, to meet and select a slate of electors, the election results notwithstanding. This, however, would take an amazing measure of courage not often demonstrated by politicians. Finally, there is a belief among some in the House of Representatives that Congress itself could refuse to accept 'tainted' Gore Florida electors, which could then ultimately result in the Congress itself choosing the president by votes of each of the state delegations, with each having a single vote. (Republicans have a majority of the state delegations.) While it is certainly always possible the court could simply affirm the lower court and end the entire matter, such an outcome does seem highly improbable. Meanwhile the clock is ticking, moving the process ever closer to the December 12 deadline for presenting a certified slate of electors to the Congress in advance of the December 18 meeting of the Electoral College. A ruling should be forthcoming either today or tomorrow. For now, we’ll have to wait and take it from there. newsmax.com