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 (156)	11/25/2000 4:04:59 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 644

Carl, here is an interesting excerpt from the same article: " One section of the law--a passage not quoted by Bush's lawyers--says that if a state provides "judicial or other methods" for resolving election disputes, those procedures "shall be conclusive." That provision "makes the Florida Supreme Court . . . the ultimate arbiter of the state's contested election," asserts University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer, writing in the weekly Legal Times. I would say that the US SC may look at the whole 1887 law, not just part of it, and that may drop this into Tribe's laps.