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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (56611)	11/25/2000 5:32:29 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Chris, I am outside the Beltway, and have no more access to the centers of power than you do. All I know is what I read in WashingtonPost.com, CNN.com, NYTimes.com, FoxNews.com, MiamiHerald.com, BBC.com, FT.com (Financial Times), DrudgeReport.com and NationalReview.com. It's all there on line. And when I am not on the computer I am clicking back and forth between CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, or else I've got C-Span radio on in the car. One observation I would like to make is that after the Elian Crisis, and now this, I am very tired of watching South Florida on TV. They don't seem to get much rain, and everyone seems to be always outside, marching around carrying signs. With respect to Bush's Supreme Court appeal, I don't know if you are aware of this but the Supremes only accepted Questions 1 and 2, which have to do with whether the Florida Supreme Court's order stopping Sec. Harris from certifying the election violated 3 USC sec. 5. They admit, in their opinion, that the order directing the Sec. of State to accept amended returns until 5:00 p.m. Sunday and include the results of the amended returns in her certification is not found within the Florida Election Code, but was a remedy they created using their equitable powers. Isn't that cute? So it's not a law, it's an equitable remedy? If it was a law, how would it look any different? LOL! I say it walks like a law, and it quacks like a law, so it's a law. And it didn't exist on Nov. 7, so it violates 3 USC 5. One thing I am wondering is whether Sec. Harris will decide not to certify at 5:00 p.m. today, on the basis that the matter is pending before the US Supreme Court. If she waits to see if the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, then she doesn't have the problem of issuing a certificate, and then issuing a second certificate if the state decision is reversed. Until she certifies the election results, the candidates can't go on to the contest stage. Another thing I wonder about is the significance of the fact that the Florida Supreme Court did not find that she abused her discretion. They said she couldn't do what she said she was going to do, but they didn't say it was an abuse of discretion. And why couldn't she do what she said she was going to do? Because the counties needed to complete their hand recounts. And why couldn't they complete them in time? There was nothing in the record - the lawyers for the counties and the Dems all agreed, and they urged the Court to use its common sense, that such big counties would have a hard time, it stood to reason. I've never seen an appellate court make its decision based on facts outside the record. So that was the thing that astonished me the most. I've written dozens of appellate briefs, I used to do that in law school and when the kids were little, and every single, solitary fact that I asserted had to have a page number next to it that showed where it could be found in the record. Otherwise, the appellate judges would tear the lawyer asserting the fact a new one - "Mr. So-and-so, where is that found in the record?" Astonishing! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bush is litigating the military ballot issue. It's pending before a trial judge in Tallahassee. Interestingly, the trial judge expressed during the hearing a doubt that he could order state officials to perform their duty under law. The one judge who exhibits judicial restraint naturally does it in the case where the Republicans are seeking an advantage! -g- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your observation about Gore and Clinton being afraid of federal prosecutors is one I've contemplated myself.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (56611)	11/25/2000 3:42:28 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Very interesting post. I do want to point out that the hypocrisy seems to be on both sides, where this is concerned <<This is where, IMO, Gore shows his true hypocrisy. He (or his minions) are still keeping those ballots from being counted, yet he keeps pontificating about how all the ballots must be counted.>> Both sides want to use technicalities to count the ballots that advantage them and exclude those that disadvantage them! Surprise, surprise! I hope these two links to posts (really one post in two parts) I just made on the Bush thread contribute to the attempt to have reasoned discourse (I think they do, and intended it), and I promise not to return here, to this sanctuary, with more politics. Message 14878457 Message 14878458