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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100345)	12/4/2000 2:04:34 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Not so fast. Gore may have a problem here. If the original cert. of Nov 14 is reinstated, his contest would be untimely. JLA

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100345)	12/4/2000 2:06:38 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It is naive to assume there is "NO effect" on the pending contest. Clearly, at a minimum, it is delaying Judge Sauls's decision, which itself makes it more difficult to complete a recount, if that is what is ordered.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (100345)	12/4/2000 3:28:02 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769667

Re: "When the canvassing board exercised its discretion to have a hand recount, they had a mandatory duty to complete the recount. This claim of Boies was not answered by the defense." That's wrong, this issue was indeed answered by the defense at some length. The gist was that if a Broward ruling in favor of counting was to be considered final, then the prior ruling against counting may be considered final. If you allow them to change that first ruling without any real change in the facts considered, then you must allow them the same discretion to reverse again back. The overriding consideration, I think Richards said, is that the canvassing boards decision is final, and the canvassing board can find as it pleases, facts it considered are relevant, and it's final decision- was not to count. If it had no discretion in this, it would have to stick with it's first decision not to count. A thorny argument(especially as I put it here), but a viable argument none-the-less, because of the facts surrounding the boards changing decisions. Dan B