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: Carolyn who wrote (4810)	12/5/2000 9:16:28 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

>>Sorry, fellas, but yesterday's Supreme Court ruling gave both the Florida legislature and Congress a big green light. "Since [Section 5 of the U.S. code] contains a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the State's determination if made pursuant to a state law in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advantage of the 'safe harbor' would counsel against any construction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law," the court said.<< I would call that a yellow light to the Florida legislature, if not a red one. The Court put its finger on the problem with the Florida Legislature stepping in and appointing Electors. The Florida Legislature has delegated the power to appoint Electors to the populace. How can it now step in and take that away ex post facto? Isn't that also changing the rules in the middle of the game? I don't see a way around it. By the way, there's a typo in the article, Judge Sauls said "no competent substantial evidence" not "no confident substantial evidence." I read on one of the news threads, probably nytimes.com, the source of Sauls' requirement of a "reasonable probability" rather than "reasonable possibility." Boies said Sauls made that up. It's found in a recent Florida Appellate Court decision. The burden of proof is high, but even so, the Plaintiff probably would not have met a lower burden of proof. Boies arguement is that there is a question as to whether there are more votes for Gore, and the only way to answer the question is to look at the ballots. Sauls said a mere possibility wasn't enough.