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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (120778)	12/5/2000 11:53:03 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

ratan, I would rather have the FL SC do what is in fact their interpretation of the law rather than running scared of the US SC or world opinion. I bet you would. US SC has asked them to provide more info on their previous judgement. That's extremely charitable view of what happened. Another way to describe is that US SC told FL SC that they have no idea of what they did, and rather than say "Wrong! All 7 of you are intellectual dwarfs" they said, "That's not right kids. Do it again, but this time try harder." I would be interested in their detailed report since that will be the precedent going forward unless overturned by US SC based on some constitutional issue which I would also be interested in. That's what got them in trouble in the first place. The presidential elections are supposed to be decided by the rules as defined by the state legislature. If there is one area where courts should use some self restraint, it is the presidential elections, but even a concept as simple as this either completely blew past them, or they completely ignore it to help their candidates. I am more interested in the process. If so, it is a better idea to follow some major league judges, rather than these 7 hapless individuals. Joe

To: ratan lal who wrote (120778)	12/6/2000 1:27:19 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

OT RE: "I would rather have the FL SC do what is in fact their interpretation of the law rather than running scared of the US SC or world opinion. I am more interested in the process." Hi Ratan, the problem is FL statutes along with the FL State Constitution ("right of the voter") is in violation of US Constitution ("Electoral vote..."). Do you know how to do a copy/past from a PDF file from IE (copy is greyed out)? I could copy/paste that section over to SI. Basically it said something like: FL SC interpreted their statutes by using the FL State Constitutions "will of the voter" and the US SC countered this by saying using "will of the voter" violates section (I think 5) of the US Constitution where the "electoral selects" not the "people", thus "will of people" is essentially an invalid argument. "it is not the will of the people that selects the President... but the electoral..." Blah. So, that's why the US SC asked the FL SC for an explanation on this argument. Regards, Amy J