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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (2825)	11/28/2000 2:44:41 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 3887

Thanks for keeping the discourse on at least part of this thread rational and intelligent. We are, of course, both absolutely and unequivocally right on the points we agree on! <g>

To: lml who wrote (2825)	11/28/2000 2:47:24 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

I think the standard is to be able to make a colorable argument on the issue, regardless how tenuous the merits. I'll accept that, even though it's not the way the Washington courts would rule. But what's the colorable argument that the SC can't hear a case which claims that a state violated a federal statute? I can't find even a smidgen of color in that. Can you? Even if you claim the statute is totally unconstitutional and should be declared unconstitutional nunc pro tunc, that's a decision for the federal, not state, courts. Color, color, who's got the color???