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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (4556)	12/4/2000 12:17:07 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I heard vacated as well. Tell us what this will mean.

To: Ilaine who wrote (4556)	12/4/2000 12:45:17 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Re: Our Bet... From the Court There is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present. I think that means we have a draw. If you agree, I propose we eat our Hersey bars and wait for the next bet. jttmab

To: Ilaine who wrote (4556)	12/4/2000 1:10:10 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Protest the Electorial College, or other aspects of this election at this site. claremontmckenna.com TP

To: Ilaine who wrote (4556)	12/4/2000 1:29:38 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I know we have talked about this before...but what is it with this SC? Why do they make such narrow rulings in general...and in this situation, they didn't even make a decision? Is this a recent phenomenon or has this been a historical pattern with the SC? I know this is complicated stuff, but win or lose, shouldn't they have been able to be more definitive OR was this the only type of ruling that would guarantee getting a 9-0 vote. Solomon would have made a decision. TG