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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106768)	12/8/2000 9:45:39 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Nadine, did you endorse statistical modification of the election totals as a possible remedy? LoF

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106768)	12/8/2000 9:48:17 PM
From: Maya	Respond to of 769670

Judge Wells' Dissent: I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court Published: December 8, 2000 Author: Justice Wells of the SCOFLA Excerpts from Justice Wells dissenting opinion (beginning at the bottom of page 40 of the official opinion. This can be found, in its entirety, at a311.g.akamai.net "… 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… 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. The majority returns the case to the circuit court for this partial recount of under-votes on the basis of unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards …the objectivity of whom are totally unknown. This is but a first glance at the imponderable problems the majority creates. 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 there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional cirsis 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. I conclude that there are more than enough theories to support the trial court's decision. …we run the risk that every election will result in judicial testing. Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters - not judges. We must have the self-discipline not to become embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is "the right thing to do." Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches, and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns. I find that the trial judge correctly concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a manual recount. I also agree with the trial judge's conclusion that in a statewide election the only way a court can order a manual recount of ballots that were allegedly not counted because of some irregularity… is to order that the votes in all counties in which those processes were used be recounted. I do not find any legal basis for the majority of this Court to simply cast aside the determination by the trial judge made on the proof presented at a two-day evidentiary hearing that the evidence did not support a statewide recount. To the contrary, I find the majority's decision in that regard quite extraordinary."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106768)	12/8/2000 10:06:54 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

From Chief Justice Wells' dissent: * Wells: "Directing the trial court to conduct a manual recount of the ballots violates article II, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, in that neither this Court nor the circuit court has the authority to create the standards by which it will count the undervoted ballots. (p. 54) * Wells: "A continuing problem with these manual recounts is their reliability. It only stands to reason that many times a reading of a ballot by a human will be subjective, and the intent gleaned from that ballot is only in the mind of the beholder. This subjective counting is only compounded where no standards exist, or, as in this statewide contest, where there are no statewide standards for determining voter intent by the various canvassing boards, individual judges, or multiple unknown counters who will eventually count these ballot. I must regrettably conclude that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision.