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: hdl who wrote (102191)	12/5/2000 1:52:38 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I agree that the FL SC has shown what they are capable of (writing bad rulings imo). The task of defending Al Gore (as opposed to interpreting the law) will be much more difficult now because: 1) The US SC just told them that the justification for their last ruling was WRONG. A lot of dems say this was a draw, or no big deal for Gore, and that it really didn't change the ruling. That could not be further from the truth. It will be very difficult to justify their ruling without using the state constitution. If they can't do it, then their RULING is wrong. I would think that this would have the judges CAREFULLY reviewing even their base decision, much less giving them the idea that they should go any further with this charade. 2) You must realize that Judge Sauls' ruling will be very difficult to overturn. He was very careful in reviewing the legalities of this situation and covered each issue very clearly. In some cases the complaints were rejected for two legal reasons. The FL SC is going to have to show how Sauls' rulings are wrong. After watching 90% of the trial (including Gore's two witnesses), I cannot see how they could even consider it. Particularly with the embarrassingly sloppy 1st ruling they made. I predict they will overturn their own ruling regarding their changing of Florida's election laws and not even take the case to overturn Sauls' very sound decision. I can't remember if you are a lawyer or not, but you do realize that the law should be interpreted in its most obvious meaning, which is not necessarily the meaning derived by an $800 per hour lawyer (or liberal judge). FL law allows for a hand recount in up to 4 counties if requested within 72 hours. These recounts must be done within 7 days. See what I mean about the obvious interpretation of the law? It is beyond me how anyone can argue (with a straight face) that the law is designed to give a candidate from one party or the other the advantage of counting votes in selective areas via their own lawyer's standards that are made up on the fly. If our country does settle this issue via that method we are in deep trouble. Deep trouble.