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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (40176)	11/30/2000 5:03:36 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

She had two decisions to make. One, to comply with or disregard the statutory due date and two, to comply with or disregard the state s ct. deadline. She complied with both. You can argue that one or the other was bad law but she had a reasonable rationale for both and was on very shaky ground to disregard either. If she disregarded either date she was going to be in court so fast her head would spin and her decision would be the sole focus of the inquiry. The way she went the statute and the court decision are the primary foci of the inquiry.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (40176)	11/30/2000 5:05:15 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT but I can't help but wonder about the impartiality of a state official who has resolved every controversy in favor of the candidate in whose campaign she worked I cannot help but think this whole issue is actually a non-issue. She was duly elected by the people of FLA for a specific function, a function that was spelled out by the FLA SC unambiguously. She was to certify the election at 5PM this past Sunday. She did not have any discretion to use in allowing for partial handcounts to be included(against FL law) nor did the FL SC say anything about extending the deadline past 5PM, unless her office was closed. Her partisianship had no part to play in this since she was in effect, stamping the election when the deadline came. There are others who are in a position to use their biases in favor of one or the other; Katherine Harris is not one of these people. Looking at the facts and facts alone, I find it difficult to believe anyone could lambaste her for performing her job. Gore/Boise/Daley/Christhopher do a good job with their spin, but anyone who looks at facts and facts alone cannot dispute what she did. BK

To: Math Junkie who wrote (40176)	11/30/2000 6:30:11 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

*OT* Cary's characterization of Harris was pretty strong stuff, to be sure. Here's a more polite approach: I voted for Bush, but I can't help but wonder about the impartiality of a state official who has resolved every controversy in favor of the candidate in whose campaign she worked. People have been questioning the impartiality of the Florida Supreme Court, but at least they can point to one decision against their own party's interests. OT - the neverending story More than one, actually. The appeal to the FL Supreme Court was over a Democratic judge's support of her discretion and decision. She is not as arbitrary as portrayed, merely sticking to the previously laid out rules. The principle is the same as in the Elian case - I disagree with the INS decision to return him, but the Federal Appeals Court stated much the same thing as this first judge did - when the legislation is unclear, the relevant Executive official's decision is operative. As we've heard incessantly about Janet Reno's partisan refusal to indict - she holds the office; it's her decision and perogative; live with it. Such a precedent is fair when it cuts both ways equally. The whining now comes from a desire to place situation over principle - just as it turned out in the Elian case. Different whiners, same tune. PS - ya want partisan state officials - check out the FL state AG named Butterworth. He was Gore campaign chairman, and he's been sticking his legal nose into areas that his own website says are not his business. He represented Florida against Harris instead of defending her (his duty as AG) in the FL Supreme Court. As I said, it cuts both ways. Florida can vote out either or both next time up. - Mitch