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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (40627)	12/8/2000 7:26:12 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

The US SC just showed the Florida SC how to couch their opinions. It is irrelevant how the opinions are couched, if they are NOT based on existing statutory law and the US Constitution. As in their first ruling, there is no basis in law for their decision. Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells comments in his dissenting opinion, "However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. My succinct conclusion is that the majority’s decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the under-votes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion." After the recount and the certification, the US SC will prevent the Florida legislature and the House from rejecting the certified electors. The electors are already certified and the US Supreme Court will certainly rebuke the latest Florida Supreme Court ruling.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (40627)	12/8/2000 7:30:22 PM
From: daryll40	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

OT Cary, I say this with the utmost respect so as not to start a "flameing" match, but you are naive to believe that all they have to do is a quick count of the votes where no presidential candidate was chosen. The REAL CORE issue is "What is a vote?" Dimpled and pimpled chads were never counted BEFORE in Florida (at least not since 1990). THAT is the real issue. Dems believe they were an honest attempt to vote (mostly for Gore) and Republicans believe that we cannot tell WHAT they are and should be discarded like since 1990. The US Supreme Court has a chance here to end this once and for all, NOW. If they punt, however, we will be in a REAL constitutional crisis as the Florida legislature picks ONE set of electors while the Florida Supreme Court orders the certification of another. D40

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (40627)	12/8/2000 8:32:17 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Also from the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice's opinion. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Constitution reads in pertinent part: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, U.S. Const. The Supreme Court has described this authority granted to the state legislatures as “plenary.” See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 7 (1892). “Plenary” is defined as “full, entire, complete, absolute, perfect, [and] unqualified.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1154 (6th ed. 1990).