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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve K who wrote (5366)	12/8/2000 8:54:44 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 6710

<<but was their ruling today their "official" response to the USSC ruling that "We don't know how you arrived at your decision"?>> No. It has been speculated in the media that they did not need to actually answer that if they did not poop on the rug again. The rug is now inundated...

To: Steve K who wrote (5366)	12/8/2000 8:59:06 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

See paragraphs 2 and 3: <<12/08/00 8:24 p.m. Changing the Election Law, Again Florida Supremes remain consistent. By Ronald D. Rotunda, visiting senior fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute On Friday, the Florida supreme court ruled--4 to 3--that it would require a manual recount of certain counties throughout the state. It also ruled that 383 Gore votes from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties must be added to Gore's vote, cutting George W. Bush's lead to 154. The hand-counted votes from Miami-Dade were selective, only from counties that overwhelmingly voted for Gore. And the votes from Palm Beach were filed in violation of the deadline that the state supreme court had earlier issued. In the meantime, the news reports that the Florida supreme court is working to clarify its previous decision that allowed hand counts to continue past the state-election-law certification deadline. It must do this pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court remand. Logically, how can the Florida supreme court add the votes from Miami-Dade and the votes from Palm Beach? These votes are still in dispute because the U.S. Supreme Court has remanded the issue, and the Florida supreme court has not answered the question that was, in effect, certified to it. Apparently, there is no need for the narrow majority of the Florida supreme court to answer the U.S. Supreme Court question. Why answer when you can just ignore it and add those disputed votes to the Gore column by ipsit dixit as if the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed the earlier decision? The U.S. Supreme Court was concerned that the Florida court had changed the law when it changed the statutory date for certification and replaced it with a date set by the court. The Florida court, in response, has changed the law once again, by adding the Palm Beach votes--the ones that were sent in after the date that the Florida's court originally sent. Perhaps Gore will win the presidency by four votes, the only four that matter--the four cast by the Florida supreme court.>>