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 : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (8151)	11/24/2000 10:06:54 AM
From: Sabrejet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

*OT-The Illinois case that was cited was in fact an argument for the exclusion of "dimpled" chads. The court ruled in essence, that dimpled chad's NOT be considered in the electoral process. The judge threw out 28 of the 35 questioned ballots. My point about the SC of FL was that they used a previous case that was given as support by Mr Boise yet they obviously never even reviewed the case. If they had, they never would have made it part of their opinion! That to me, was quite amateurish! Each judge has 3 clerks and each clerk has a supportive staff of lawyers that will do research, etc... To ignore the actual findings in a case cited before them is laughable. BTW, California law prohibits the counting of "pregnant" chads among others. The Texas statute cannot be overturned unless, (1) the legislature decides to change the law or (2) it is challenged by someone who loses an election in the state of Texas(not me!) and shows that it is biased or vague. I bet ya a nickel that within the next two years, that statute will get tested!! Sabre!

To: Bosco who wrote (8151)	11/24/2000 10:14:28 AM
From: Grashopper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

i.e. the will of the voters is paramount in FLORIDA........this is illustrated in a recent case in West Palm B each where the city having a right to sell entered into a real estate contract to sell the former defunct city convention facility and auditorium to a private party..........outraged citizens gathered enuf signatures to force a refendum election where the citizens could approve or veto the sale......the buyer sought and got a injunction on the grounds that the election could force the city to breach a valid contract and be liable for big damages..............the Supreme Ct. while recognizing the buyer's position was correct said no matter ..the election wouild proceed because the right of the electorate to their election was supreme even if created a breach of contract......................luckily the election actually approved the sale so there was a happy ending but the city could have been bankrupt if the voters said no to the previously done deal and the would be buyers sued for breach of contract.............this questionable decision is still Florida law.