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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maverick61 who wrote (41900)	11/22/2000 2:15:57 AM
From: Mark Konrad	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 57584

OTJudges are not infallible and can be as good or bad or biased as anyone else. The problem, whether one prefers either candidate, is that this decision arguably goes beyond adjudication to legislation. (The unusual criticism of Ms. Harris was harsh, unwarranted, and smelled a little dictatorial, imo.) Mr. Gore's words ring hollow as "the will of the people" still refers only to those selected counties as counted and subjectively determined by political partisans. Had Mr. Gore really meant what he said, he would have asked for (and gotten) a complete re-re-recount and hand count of all Florida's votes, not just the four Democratic counties. I am far more concerned about the ongoing 70-year trend of "legislating from the bench" than I am about who occupies the Oval Office come January. Whether one agrees with a particular judgment or not, credit goes to the Democrats for understanding, using, and aggressively increasing the power of the judicial process over the years. Occasionally, as with Justice Rose Bird here in California, a judge can become so adverse to existing law that the "will of people" eventually prevails to the point where the judge is forcibly removed. Judges are not Popes(!) and they certainly aren't gods. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of FDR's New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, he vowed to get rid of those "nine old men." And in time, he did. Good or bad, we deserve what we get. All of those judges were appointed by an elected official. Perhaps more people of all philosophical and political persuasions will now realize and learn how important it is to research and vote FOR EVERY OFFICE IN EVERY ELECTION, not just the presidential races. To close, if I were a sincere Gore supporter (one who truly believes in or prefers his policies) my happiness with tonight's ruling would be tempered with many of the actions of the Democratic partisans, operatives, and leadership these past two weeks. Frankly, I'd be more than a little embarrassed. To their credit, even though it is likely they will "lose" this "election," the Republicans have been much more consistent, more civil, and far more credible in their words and actions. Couldn't resist stopping in to throw in my two cents tonight! Regards to all, Mark

To: maverick61 who wrote (41900)	11/22/2000 2:32:03 AM
From: Jet.Screamer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57584

It will be over by monday because the U.S. Supreme Court won't touch it. The basis for ending up in federal court is absent. The decision was no surprise for the market if you watched how the averages moved when the attorneys for both sides spoke. While the Gore attorneys spoke the market recovered and continued doing so for the 10 minute break. When the Bush attorneys spoke it started to tank. Had the Bush attorneys done better in front of the court the market would not have gone down as much as it did. However in defense of them they were in a no win position. Their only legal argument was that one statute set a definitive deadline and conflicted with another statute. I seem to recall from law school that when there are two statutes that can conflict in some situations the court will try to interpret them in a manner that gives both legal validity. Perhaps if Bush had enough confidence in his position before the State court he would not have dragged it into federal court which reveals that this decision is no surprise to Bush either. BTW-Although I do not like how this is affecting the markets this is a well reasoned and well thought out decision that would not have resulted if the Florida Legislature did a more competent job. Also one who gives money to a candidate and one who campaigns for a candidate are not comparable. jon