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: greenspirit who wrote (93232)	11/28/2000 11:36:19 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, if Bush has Alabama on his side, Gore may as well give up his fight now.

To: greenspirit who wrote (93232)	11/28/2000 11:41:33 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks, Michael, a well- argued brief.....

To: greenspirit who wrote (93232)	11/28/2000 11:48:12 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The Florida Supreme Court dealt with the contradiction in the statute relative to "shall" and "may" relative to the secretary of state's power of discretion. "May" was amended into the statute without eliminating "shall." Given that Florida statutes, within certain provisions, allow for a candidate to request a hand recount reasonable time must be granted for the hand recount to happen, otherwise the statute allowing for the hand recount is moot. As I've written before on this thread, a law which has an impossible test for compliance cannot exist. So the Court has to allow for and find a means for compliance or strike down the law altogther. And it's doubtful, given error rates known to exist in voting machines and other compelling reasons such as fraud, etc., that the court would strike down the law which allows for hand recounts. Given the conflict it had before it, the Florida Supreme Court ruled time must be allowed for the hand recount. The U.S. Supreme Court will side with the Florida Supreme Court given it was interpreting a conflict within the state statutes. The Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules, rather it interpreted a conflict which existed due to faulty legislation. That's what courts do.