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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3280)	11/25/2000 5:32:33 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6710

The Supreme Court is a pretty nifty group of guys and gals. I really wasn't sure whether the SC would refuse to hear the GOP appeal or not. I mistakenly thought it would be a binary choice. The ol' codgers got me again! <s> Time to pull out, again, the GOP appeal and the Courts response...I'm sure that you must know by now that they refused to hear question 3 from the GOP appeal [sic, don't waste our time, you're silly]. But they did agree to hear questions 1 and 2. In particular, question 1...if the SC rules that the FL SC can make interpretations of Legislative law, i.e., that some dates are arbitrary and the intent of the voters is a more paramount concern than that of dates that are set for "timeliness". It would allow the Supreme Court to rule on the date set by the FL SC for the manual count this Sunday. In other words, the GOP Question 1 allows for the possibility of the US SC to order the manual recount to be included after the date set by the FL SC, since all the deadlines in Florida are somewhat arbitrarily set to meet the US Constitutional requirements...clever are those ol' folks. State's Rights vs. intent of the people vs. legislative set dates....where will the Court draw those lines? Interesting stuff!...and we have the GOP lawyers to thank for allowing this possibility! jttmab