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: MasonS who wrote (102596)	12/5/2000 7:50:24 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 769667

Michael makes sense when he puts it like this. The FSC did not get away with it once. The USSC slapped their wrists.

To: MasonS who wrote (102596)	12/5/2000 7:54:46 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The FL SC should be the side of the angels this time. If Clark throws out the ballots she'll be flying in the face of clear precedent: Message 14947583 BTW this case, Beckstrom, was ironically cited by Boies et. al. in their arguments before Sauls. The precedent for throwing out absentee ballots (a Miami mayoral race) was entirely different -- in that case, there was evidence of fraud in the votes themselves. The FL SC has already made it clear they'll bend over backwards to "let every vote count". Partisanship aside, they're judges and I'm sure they actually believe their previous ruling in Harris was correct, so how can they change their tune now? With a ruling for the plaintiffs Clark could send enough juice through Gore's corpse to make it twitch a bit but, based on existing case law, there's no way the FL SC could let it stand. At least, I hope to God that's so.