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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (87611)	11/25/2000 9:00:21 PM
From: ColtonGang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Who Will Make the Arguments? Four of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices must vote to hear a case before the court takes it on. In this case, and as court tradition dictates, there was no official list of who voted to hear the case and who dissented, but none of the justices have publicly opposed the high court’s decision to hear Bush’s appeal. The justices said they would hear an hour and a half of arguments starting at 10 a.m. Friday. So far, Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe confirmed he will be making arguments on Gore’s behalf. Tribe has long experience in arguing cases before the high court and has often been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee himself. So far, the Bush camp hasn’t said who it has selected to make its arguments before the high court Friday.Judicial Precedent The Supreme Court has handed down at least two significant rulings on election law in the last few decades. In a 1970 case from Indiana, the justices ruled that even if the state conducted a recount in a tight U.S. Senate race, members of the Senate had the power to make an “unconditional and final judgment” on whom to seat as a member. In another case, the court ruled in 1969 that the House of Representatives was wrong to refuse a seat to former Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., who was under investigation by the Judiciary Committee, even though he received a majority of the votes. But neither of these cases addresses questions related to a disputed presidential election. “The court has historically been very reluctant to get involved in election disputes,” Baran said. “They might take the case just for purposes of deciding they shouldn’t get involved.” ABCNEWS.com’s Claire Moore, ABCNEWS’ Ellen Davis, Jami Floyd and Reuters contributed to this article.