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: Qone0 who wrote (87658)	11/25/2000 10:10:41 PM
From: RON BL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Gore team has known all along about the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case of Roe v. Alabama, which overturned an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that had changed the way votes were counted, after an election. Sound familiar? And that was in a state election, not a federal one. How much greater is the weight of the Bush argument for federal review of a federal election and for the only office in which the candidates are elected by the entire nation? Gore is in deep trouble this moment. Whereas Florida's Supremes are an activist court for partisan reasons, at least the U.S. Supreme Court has been activist for the purpose, in their minds, of reining in states not compliant with the U.S. Constitution. The Bush argument that will be heard is that the Florida Supremes violated equal protection, due process, and separation of powers provisions of the federal Constitution. Sounds right to me. And here's a bet that it will sound right to Rehnquist's robed brethren.

To: Qone0 who wrote (87658)	11/25/2000 10:28:58 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 769670

I see no other way they could rule. I believe they will find that the FSC overstepped its bounds...that they should not have required the SOS to accept the hand recounts by a new deadline...that is new law. I don't see a clear conflict in the law that would require such a ruling. She could have accepted recounts if she wanted to. She considered options as she was required to do. She gave her reasons. The FLC did not indicate her reasons were invalid. What they did was bend over backwards to find discrepancies in the law as justification to rewrite it. Florida law allows for contests after certification. The question is what is the remedy? How do you move the clock back? Perhaps require certification of votes based on the first deadline. Then move all recounts into the contest period. Zeuspaul