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: PartyTime who wrote (98147)	12/2/2000 1:09:37 AM
From: FastC6	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

don't forget to pack your diapers. . .

To: PartyTime who wrote (98147)	12/2/2000 1:23:59 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks for the response. Your position is well thought out and gives me a perspective different than my own. I wish there was more of this type of dialog back and forth on this thread. It sounds like you know more about the Supreme Court than I do, but I think they will want to set a precedent that you really can't change the rules in a National election after it starts. It sets off a chain of events that is chaotic and unpredictable. When the conservative guys (and O'Conner) talked about situations they felt were black and white it was more convincing than the liberal arguments (imo). Regardless of who's right or wrong here, don't you think that both sides would have to be presented through their questioning? Even if it was 9-0 going into it, they would have to probe all possiblities. Why not have the justices that traditionally lean one way or another pose the questions that reflect their views?