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 (93243)	11/28/2000 11:40:49 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

No, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I will probably just wait to see what happens on Friday.

To: greenspirit who wrote (93243)	11/29/2000 12:01:47 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

Well, I actually did start to read the brief. I haven't gotten too far, but I did catch this bit of self-promotion on the very front page: "The current Attorney General of Alabama, then a deputy attorney general, personally represented the State and the current Secretary of State in that litigation."

To: greenspirit who wrote (93243)	11/29/2000 12:31:35 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

Well, after swearing that I wouldn't burn any more time reading all of the briefs in the S. Ct. case, I find myself doing it anyway. I found this quote in the Gore brief interesting, which is cited in support of their assertion that the Florida Supreme Court was doing what courts routinely do: interpret statutes and harmonize potentially conflicting statutory provisions: “[T]he ‘traditional tools of statutory construction’ include not merely text and legislative history but also, quite specifically, the consideration of policy consequences * * * . [O]ne of the most frequent justifications courts give for choosing a particular construction is that the alternative interpretation would produce * * * results less compatible with the reason or purpose of the statute.”.