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.

Pastimes : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (9025)	12/4/2000 1:30:56 PM
From: Apollo	Respond to of 22706

I think you have to give the Supremes a lot of credit for their ruling. I do. Well done. I miss Diana Ross and the Supremes; I've always liked their music. I betcha even Buckley agrees with this one. ca@stop!Inthenameoflove.ross

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (9025)	12/4/2000 1:59:32 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22706

Frank, You've got it all wrong. Glad to know that you're consistent. I think you have to give the Supremes a lot of credit for their ruling. There was no ruling. It was both unanimous and ambiguous at the same time. It was not revealed how divided or undivided the Court is. It insured that they won't influence the election at all, They're direction to the state Supreme Court delays decisions which can have the same effect as influencing the outcome of the election. and, best of all, that there will be no minority opinion to embarrass them. The decision they made is not one that requires the writing of a majority and dissident opinion. That can come later once the state Supreme Court responds to the federal Supreme Court. It allows both the Dems and the Republicans to claim victory from the highest court in the land. It's difficult to understand how the Dems can claim a victory considering that the state Supreme Court's ruling has not been overturned, yet. It was a carefully crafted and totally useless decision - a testament to their skills at lawyering. Considering that you make investment decisions without having command of the facts, I can appreciate that you don't understand why the Justices want to get clarification of the facts before making a ruling. --Mike Buckley