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: Mr. Palau who wrote (96983)	12/1/2000 11:56:10 AM
From: R.V.M.	Respond to of 769670

If he can't satisfy Scalia... Scalia in effect just challenged him as to why this case has ended up in the USSC. Sounds like Scalia has decided to be difficult to satisfy. RVM

To: Mr. Palau who wrote (96983)	12/1/2000 11:58:55 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769670

The fact is this: If you're gonna give a candidate the right for a hand recount, you've gotta give that candidate a fair and reasonable time to enable that recount to take place. Given that "may" was amended after the existing "shall" language, and given the need for compliance relative to giving the candidate fair and reasonable time for the hand recount, the courts must reconcile this by downplaying "shall" and exercising "may" operatively in conjunction with the right of the candidate for the fair and reasonable recount. Legislatures can't pass laws which are impossible to comply with. All the Florida Supreme Court did was, not make a new rule, but rather it interpreted the contradiction in the Florida law of "shall" and "may," and aligned it with the candidate's rightful request which was given to him/her by the legislature.