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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (120167)	12/1/2000 7:59:14 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I didn't mean biased towards the candidate, I meant they were leaning towards the candidates position. Remember, they have already read the briefs in the case. At some point they have to be biased towards a point of view, in order to make a decision, don't you think? Well then biased is the wrong word to use. They dont have to biased ot make a decision. They hear the arguments, they read the laws and interpret those laws. If they have a problem interpreting the law, they go back to the legislative language that led to tthe law for some clarifications. Finally, based on the arguments and the law as they understand it, they, the judges individually, come up with a decision. if we do not accept their decision or say that they are biased, then what is to stop others in all court cases from claiming the same thing. Should they then, not acccpt the judgements. Should a person found guilty of murder then claim that the court was biased against him because he is white and the jury and judge are black therefore the conviction should be thrown out? BTW this was proposed by a black attorney in Washington during the OJ (or maybe it was Rodney King)hearings where he claimed that the whites are prejudiced agaisnt blacks and therefore if you, as a black person, find yourself on the jury in a trial against a black person, you should find him not guilty no matter what the evidence. This was referred to as jury nullification. That is exactly what is happening in this case. the people for Bush are saying that SC judges are biased because they are democrats and they would like to nullify that SC decision to count the votes manually on an extended time frame. IMHO I dont think the US SC will override the FL SC's decision even tho they are republican majority. We will have to wait and see.