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: Scrapps who wrote (106236)	12/8/2000 6:07:48 PM
From: margie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The sight of Daley makes me want to puke. Dimples for Gore, just like Ben Ginsberg said. Here's your constitutional crisis, Mr. Lieberman, and you and Gore have caused it. You don't settle federal elections in the court. The states legislatures have complete jurisdiction and only Congress can resolve competing sets of electors. It is a meaningless victory, as you will lose, for the forth or fifth time. Chief Justice Wells of the Florida Supreme Court: dissenting "Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that thereഊ is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution On the basis of my analysis of Florida law as it existed on November 7, 2000, I conclude that the trial court’s decision can and should be affirmed. .Under our law, of course, a decision of a trial court reaching a correct result will be affirmed if it is supportable under any theory, even if an appellate court disagrees with the trial court’s reasoning. Dade County School Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644-645 (Fla. 1999). "There are two fundamental and historical principles of Florida law that this Court has recognized which are relevant here. First, at common law, there was no right to contest an election; thus, any right to contest an election must be construed to grant only those rights that are explicitly set forth by the Legislature. 1. In Flynn, we held that, “[a]t common law, except for limited application of quo warranto, (fraud) there was no right to contest in court any public election, because such a contest is political in nature and therefore outside the judicial power.” 2. Second, this Court gives deference to decisions made by executive officials charged with implementing Florida’s election laws. We acknowledge that election laws should generally be liberally construed in favor of an elector. However, the judgment of officials duly charged with carrying out the election process should be presumed correct if reasonable and not in derogation of the law. Wells asked good questions. He learned. Haven't read the rest. Legislative Rep Frankel: Read the United States constitution. You don't know what you are talking about. This is not a lawful recount. The Florida supreme court is wrong, and is acting unlawfully. The US constitution made laws that would prevent this discord, chaos, fighting and PROVIDE FOR FINALITY. Is the FSC trying to start a civil war? Those four "judges" are ignorant, unlawful, and should be rebuked and hopefully impeached. Even the liberal media is not comfortable with this decision. We want finality and this was force the Florida Legislature to select their own slate of electors. They caused all the discord that has existed since November 13th; by refusing to allow Harris to perform what the Florida Legislature legislated before the election. Enough is enough. We want finality. The Florida Supreme Court just doesn't get. THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION HERE, AND NO RIGHT TO CHANGE THE LAWS IN PLACE BEFORE THE ELECTION. ONLY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HAS THAT RIGHT, and it has to be done before the election, not on the fly.