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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (451)	11/27/2000 1:17:18 PM
From: jcky	Respond to of 14610

MadDog, < Well, the Supremes can tell the Florida Supreme Court that changing the rules after the election violates Florida law. > So do we need the highest Court in the nation to reaffirm what common sense and human decency tells us what is right or fair? Was this the original intent of the Florida law? Or do we need the Democratic Florida vote counters to tell us what our "intent" should be? <grin> Regards,

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (451)	11/27/2000 1:41:26 PM
From: Lost1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Is Diana Ross involved now??

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (451)	11/27/2000 4:03:52 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

I finally had a chance to read the Florida Supreme Court's decision as well as the various statutes involved. Truthfully, the decision was as I expected. They essentially went through the canons of statutory construction to get to the basic decision, which was that the statutory scheme had to be harmonized in order to allow for the hand recounts to be accomplished. On the whole, the reasoning hung together. The opinion will make it difficult for the Democrats to complain about the Sunday night deadline. Given the level of discretion vested with the local boards to even begin a manual recount, I also think it will be difficult for them to proceed against the Miami Dade folks who elected to stop. The rules for protests were interesting. As for the ascertainment of voter intent, the statutes do appear to allow for some interpretation. But the language refers to ascertainment of clear intent, and that is where I believe the actual process undertaken was fundamentally flawed. It seems to me that for intent to be CLEAR, it has to be extremely persuasive and not the result of wishful thinking and unsubstantiated assumptions. JMO M