SI
SI
discoversearch

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: WTSherman who wrote (97512)12/1/2000 4:46:09 PM
From: Timothy W. Johnson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
<Resolving such conflicts between statutes is what court's do all the time. This is interpreting the law, no?>

Yes, and one way to resolve the conflict would be to say that such recounts could be requested up to 3 days after the election. Changing the certification date from one week after the election to 3 weeks after the election is not "interpreting" the law, yes?



To: WTSherman who wrote (97512)12/1/2000 5:23:07 PM
From: Ellen  Respond to of 769670
 
I'm glad you asked that question, as I have wondered about that too. To date, I have yet to see an explanation of this. As one of the issues before the Supreme Court today, it will be interesting to see what they rule on that.



To: WTSherman who wrote (97512)12/1/2000 5:34:36 PM
From: TheLineMan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The only thing in the FSC ruling which could even remotely be regarded as incorrect is putting their own arbitary deadline on the manual recounts in the counties. They should have stipulated that all manual recounts were to be finished first, and then the matter of accepting these counts addressed.