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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hdl who wrote (87393)	11/25/2000 5:15:09 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I am not for dimpled votes, and I frankly think Bush has won, and that Gore should concede. That being said, the Florida court's decision was the only one that could make sense. How can you have a valid hand recount in such a short period of time? The legislature (the one that passed the law in 1951!) could not have preferred speed over the right of all voters to be counted! The right to vote is paramount. I think any law that requires a vote to be certified without enough time for a VALID challenge & recount period to be unconstitutional as it can deny people the right to have their votes fairly counted. Don't forget, law is made for this race, the next race, and the close race 20 years from now. We shouldn't let emotions of the day dictate what the enduring legal principles should be. I also say: shame on James Baker! The rule of law means we listen to court decisions, not try to overturn the ones we don't like in partisan legislatures. The fact that we have since Marbury in 1801 recognized that the COURT is the final word has saved us from civil war many times. Thank God Baker wasn't in power when local legislatures were attacking courts in the 60's because the "unelected" courts were striking down the elected legislatures' Jim Crow laws.

To: hdl who wrote (87393)	11/25/2000 5:18:18 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>>the florida courts have been extremely political and very much biased toward gore and did not follow law, facts or reason<<<< I thought I'd been following all of this pretty close but evidently I haven't. Could you give me a specific example of when a Florida court did not follow law, facts or reason. Please include the portion of the law that they did not follow.

To: hdl who wrote (87393)	11/25/2000 5:34:55 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

hdl I found the post you are refering too to be in particularly good taste like a spicey chicken toM Watson tosiwmee Sore unfit Investors Business Daily watman.com Sore unfit Investors Business Dail