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: Carolyn who wrote (104107)	12/7/2000 10:27:53 AM
From: margie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Yes they do. And the Democrats and Boise will pretend that they do not. They know the constitution. They are just trying to ignore it; but it won't work this time.

To: Carolyn who wrote (104107)	12/7/2000 10:42:42 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The FSC seems to be falling all over itself to find a way to reverse. Anstead is focusing on the ballots "in evidence" and questioning why the trial court did not review them. By contrast, the Chief Justice is focusing on the statewide nature of the issues. The real problem they have is the rules on appeal and the way they must evaluate legal vs. factual findings. It would not surprise me to see them remand to Judge Sauls for further factual findings. If they do that, Sauls will just beef up his opinion and make it bullet proof. If they reverse and remand based on a legal issue, such as the standards to be applied, Sauls will still find that the evidence was insufficient to carry the plaintiff's burden under either standard. It is unusual for an appellate court to enter a new judgment and not remand to the trial court if it believes a case should be reversed. I therefore think it unlikely that the FSC would do that here; but I've been wrong before. I'll probably have more thoughts later. :-) M