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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (150)	11/25/2000 12:22:52 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Carl, not being a lawyer, I get lost in this morass. I understood that the FSC simply had to reconcile two contradicting dicti in the Florida election law, the certification after seven days on one hand and the allowance of hand counting when a losing party request so on the other, and the fact that these two are "contradictory in that the time allotted (really only four days, since the request for manual recount takes 72 hours) cannot be sufficient, particularly in view of all the legal and other challenges placed on this process time after time. IMHO, they interpreted the law by stating that determining the "intention of the voters" has priority over the certification date, and thus enjoined the secretary from certifying until Sunday, allowing, supposedly, sufficient time for "contest". The only possible "law making" was the ordering of the two priorities, which in the absence of a legislative decision on that point is left to the court to decide. The legislation certainly can come back and clarify its priorities in the coming session (maybe disallowing hand counting altogether, but as of now, manual counting is the Florida Law, and law that cannot be implemented within the time frame of another law (certification) should be intrinsically non constitutional). Zeev irrevolute.iuma.com

To: Carl R. who wrote (150)	11/25/2000 8:20:42 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

<edited><ot>Hi Carl - re: demonstration, for one thing, evidently, according to news outlets including ABC, PBS etc, the GOP protesters got bussed around to different hot sites. They said they want their votes protected, but ABC uncovered some were even from FL. Finally, being a believer in MLK Jr and Gandhi, I believe in civil disobedience against dictatorial regime, but I do not believe violence and violent disruption in the Geller case in particular and Miami-Dade county in general. Why, these people behave more like the UMW in the 70s or the Green Peace [to be an equal oppty critic :),] some of the Republicans' oppositions! Worst of all, according to ABC, there is a strong indication that they were orchestrated by the GOP operatives, people who have mouthed off RULE of LAW at every turn. I do not believe for a single moment this is the typical behavior of republican voters, or democrat voters, or even Buchanan's supporters! However, if the leadership is behaving this way, I do not feel I belong there! But that is just me :) Regarding USSC stepping in. Maybe it is a good thing after all. To say the least, while the decision may very well be split and narrow, whichever way it breaks, it will set a precedent. We may well on our way to voting reform. That is good for the reps, the dems, the nadarites and the reformers. <edited> in retrospect, using violence against the abortion clinics does fall within some of the extreme elements of the GOP fundamentalist right wing, so maybe this is not an anomaly after all. best, Bosco