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: Elmer who wrote (118875)	11/22/2000 12:00:41 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 186894

Oh, give me a break. The line among all Bush supporters seems to be that the interpretation of the Florida Bush campaign co-chair is correct and infallible. This reminds me somewhat of the infallible legal position of a certain alleged IP company and sometimes Intel co-conspirator. Questions involving interpretation of law always wind up in court, and the idea that the Florida Supreme Court is somehow less "objective" than the Florida Bush campaign co-chair is , er, counterintuitive.

To: Elmer who wrote (118875)	11/22/2000 12:34:28 PM
From: f.simons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer- They completely threw out the law prescribed by the legislator and created out of thin air a remedy crafted to suit a single political end. What law did they throw out? They reconciled two contradictory provisions in the Florida election statutes. 7 Democrats can operate outside any law passed by their legislature and personally select our next President without answering to anyone in a timely manner. No law can stop them because they define their own power and authority This is known as the Supreme-Court-run-amuck scenario. They make a ruling I don't like, so I accuse them of disregarding any law passed by the legislature. This completely ignores the fact that there was a contradiction in those laws which needed to be reconciled. The Constitution makes them the last authority on what the Constitution says. Who should be the last authority? Let me guess: The Republican legislature. That's why it is a black day for the rule of law. C'mon Elmer. It isn't the end of the republic. A few folks who otherwise wouldn't have had their votes count, now will. If the Secretary of State (who is completely non-partisan, of course) hadn't been in such a hurry to inaugurate Bush as our next president, we might have avoided the Supreme Court entirely. Frank