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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3386)	11/26/2000 1:51:23 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

"Well, if she does it with that high school cheerleader smirk, she might find herself in contempt of court." And if one could have stood up and stopped Hitler in 1932 with only the risk of a contempt of court citation, and an entire state government to tie the offending court up in knots for the next twenty years... Perhaps Katherine Harris will be driven by something you slimy traitors aren't familiar with: The ideals that founded the first free nation on earth. Take a minute to imagine 100,000 Republicans ripping down the prison walls in the same manner that the Germans tore down the Berlin Wall in 1989. Then go practice your Hillary-like "Hate America First" smirk...

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3386)	11/26/2000 7:27:34 AM
From: Vendit™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

A couple of points here: 1- It is FL law that Ms Harris has the sole authority to certify the election 7 days after the vote. It is her sole responsibility and not that of anyone else in the state. 2- The FL supreme court made up of 7 hand picked democrats re wrote Fl law when they ordered Ms Harris not to certify 7 days after and they re wrote FL law when they allowed the recounts to continue by hand. Based on FL law it would take a machine malfunction (already blown out of the water by Fl Supreme court) or a natural disaster (being stupid probably won't qualify) to do recounts but those recounts must be reported to Ms Harris no later than 7 days after the election. 3- Never has the U.S. supreme court over turned a state election. 4- It is FL state law that in the event Ms Harris uses her discretion and decides not to certify a vote that it will then be the responsibility of the FL State Legislature who will certify the winner of the election which Bush still leads by 500 votes. 5- The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Bush's case to throw out the recounted votes. It takes 4 of the justices to make the decision to hear a case. This means that at least 4 of the U.S. supreme court justices think that Bush may have a winnable case. 6- The FL Legislature has decided to join Bush in his case. 7- Most counties which threw out overseas ballots have conceded and are now adding votes to the Bush total which may or may not get certified by Ms Harris today. 8- Like panicky liberals do, Ms Harris won't stoop to name calling today when she announces her intention. * high school cheerleader smirk **************** Developments in Other Florida Counties Saturday, November 25, 2000 While all eyes were on Palm Beach and Broward counties, other Florida counties continued their recounts. The following are developments in other Florida counties: — Bay County: The canvassing board voted Friday to accept 12 previously rejected overseas ballots. That resulted in a net gain of two votes for Bush. — Brevard County: Bush picked up a net of eight votes after canvassing board members voted Wednesday to accept 20 previously rejected overseas absentee ballots. — Clay County: Canvassing board voted Friday to accept 14 of 17 previously rejected overseas ballots. Bush had a net gain of 12 votes. — Collier County, Bush picked up a net of one vote on Saturday. The canvassing board reconsidered 43 overseas ballots that had been rejected previously and accepted 17 of them. Of those, Bush received eight votes, Gore had seven and Ralph Nader had two. — Duval County: Canvassing board voted Friday to accept 68 of 81 previously rejected overseas ballots. Bush had a net gain of 20 votes. — Miami-Dade: Counting suspended on Wednesday. Only votes not counted by the Secretary of State are six votes for Gore from earlier sample hand count of three precincts. — Nassau County: Canvassing board voted 3-0 Friday to use the Nov. 7 vote totals instead of the results of a recount which inadvertently missed about 200 presidential ballots. The action resulted in a net gain for 52 votes for Bush, including one overseas absentee ballot that the board decided to use for the total. — Okaloosa County, the county canvassing board on Wednesday awarded two previously rejected overseas ballots to Bush. Both involved bad postmarks. No votes for Gore. — The Associated Press contributed to this report foxnews.com

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3386)	11/26/2000 7:47:05 AM
From: Vendit™	Respond to of 6710

Upcoming Supreme Court Hearing Focuses Upon Untested Law At issue is whether the Florida court violated the Constitution and a little-known and apparently untested federal law. The gist of the Bush claim is that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and made law, instead of reviewing it, when it allowed hand recounts to continue through the weekend, and dictated that those recounts figure in the final statewide tally now due Sunday. The Republicans say the rules were changed part-way through the game. Gore claims the Florida court was merely doing its job in resolving conflicting directions from the Florida legislature about how to deal with close elections. The constitutional question centers on the document's guarantee that states get to decide for themselves how to choose electors to the Electoral College. The question of federal law, or what lawyers call the statutory question, deals with *an 1887 law that says states' electors must be chosen under laws already on the books before* Election Day. Gillers and other constitutional scholars said they can find no references to the law in subsequent court cases — meaning it likely has never been challenged. Many constitutional scholars were startled by the court's willingness to take the case, but predict that having done so the justices will strive for unanimity. In recent years, the justices have issued a series of 5-4 decisions that have boosted states' power versus that of the federal government.** (edit: did I say never?.... I stand corrected) The entire press release>>>>> foxnews.com