SI
SI
discoversearch

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: jttmab who wrote (4659)12/4/2000 6:12:17 PM
From: Oral Roberts  Respond to of 6710
 
One of the lawyers on one of my readings today said exactly that. They are not saying the decision is necessarily wrong but they don't understand what they used to make their decision. It sounded to me like the basis for their decision would have more to do with whether the USSC found it in their area or not.

Jeff



To: jttmab who wrote (4659)12/4/2000 6:17:13 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6710
 
Any of those terms + the word "remand" would have the same effect, I believe.



To: jttmab who wrote (4659)12/4/2000 6:30:26 PM
From: TraderGreg  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6710
 
How ironic that the Nine Justices of the Supreme Court are probably the only people in the country who aren't 100% sure in their minds what the FL SC meant to do.

Why is it I find that so hard to believe?

I would have respected it more if they ruled for Bush rather than their James Buchanan/Franklin Pierce/Swiss foreign policy response.

TG


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News