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: chalu2 who wrote (100182)	12/4/2000 12:23:26 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 555 (1940). This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present. See ibid. "It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambiguities from the opinions in such cases." Id., at 557. Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature’s authority under Art. II, §1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. §5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. a388.g.akamai.net

To: chalu2 who wrote (100182)	12/4/2000 12:26:50 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

They vacated the FL SC decision 9-0 and remanded back to FLSC. Any way liberals slice it, it is a major defeat for Gore.

To: chalu2 who wrote (100182)	12/4/2000 12:33:17 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

The decision was not reversed, it was vacated, which means the fl sct was told to clarify their decision. Now it's back to the FL SCt to clarify whether their reference to the state constitution was critical to their decision. If they say that their decision is fully supported by state statutory construction principles and legislative intent, then I think the US Supreme Court will stay out of it, and the state court decision will stand. If this distinction didnt matter, the court could have resolved it. My bet: the fl sct court clarifies their opinion to make clear that it can stand on statutory construction/intent principles alone, removing any federal question. This does not take the heat off of sauls, and does nothing o move Gore closer to a concession, at least until the fl sct revisits the issue. By then they may have sauls' decision as well, and could resolve the whole thing by the end of the week.