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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (85817)	11/23/2000 2:22:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

The party that appoints members of the court will tend to appoint judges whose interpretation of the law and other controversial items is similar to their own. (similar philosophies) For sure. I was just trying to draw the distinction between having a similar philosophy and being a political hack, angling for a particular candidate's victory. I am not a lawyer, but there are clearly a bunch of contradictory statutes regarding manual recounts that the judges aimed to interpret. I hope we get a more balanced view from the Supreme Court whichever way it goes What I keep hearing is that due to the more conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, they are unlikely to intervene in a matter that has traditionally been under the jurisdiction of the states. What is the federal issue involved here?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (85817)	11/23/2000 4:07:39 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Wayne, the reason I don't believe that the legislature was in any way "stacked" for that decision, or kind of decision like that, is that it's ruling is unprecedented. Any alignment of values or beliefs that could have influenced that decision would have been purely accidental. Chances are they were appointed for their positions on certain issues, like abortion, immigration, and minority rights. The only part of the "debates" I actually saw was when Gore said any Supreme Court nominee of his would have to pass the test of supporting Roe vs. Wade. Bush, although he wants to overturn that decision, did not have the guts to state his intention to do the opposite. Whatever, I believe that single issue is the one governing the most high level judicial appointees in the US now. Kind of stupid, when you think about it. In any event, I think the decision by the Florida Supreme Court smacked of reasonableness, and that kind of thinking should be squashed <g>.