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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (17049)	12/9/2000 5:03:47 AM
From: drew_m	Respond to of 60323

Craig, Do me a favor and read what the Chief Justice wrote. SO dont go spouttin off that the Fl Supreme Ct. did the right thing. I was shocked when I read the words that Wells chose. Oh BTW.... If you want to count all the votes. Start with the Men and Women of the US Military. You cant have it both ways. Please read Wells. Drew They KNOW they are going to get overturned, it was a POLITICAL move. They allowed the courts to be used, which is indeed sad. ===================================================== WELLS, C.J., dissenting. I join Justice Harding’s dissenting opinion except as to his conclusions with regard to error by Judge Sauls and his conclusions as to the separateness of section 102.166 and 102.168, Florida Statutes (2000). I write separately to state my additional conclusions and concerns.ഊI want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority. 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. 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 with authority to obtain help from others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally unknown. That 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-42- 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). I conclude that there are more than enough theories to support this trial court’s decision. 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. See McPherson v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665, 668 (Fla. 1981). In Flynn, we held that, “[a]t common law, except for limited application of quo warranto, 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.” Id. at 667.ഊSecond, this Court gives deference to decisions made by executive officials charged with implementing Florida’s election laws. See Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Committee, 625 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1993). In Krivanek, we said: 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. Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So.2d 259 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 967, 96 S. Ct. 2162, 48 L. Ed.2d 791 (1976). As noted in Boardman: The election process is subject to legislative prescription and constitutional command and is committed to the executive branch of government through duly designated officials all charged with specific duties.... [The] judgments [of those officials] are entitled to be regarded by the courts as presumptively correct and if rational and not clearly outside legal requirements should be upheld rather than substituted by the impression a particular judge or panel of judges might deem more appropriate. It is certainly the intent of the constitution and the legislature that the results of elections are to be efficiently, honestly and promptly ascertained by election officials to whom some latitude of judgment is accorded, and that courts are to overturn such determinations only for compelling reasons when there are clear, substantial departures from essential requirements of law. Id. at 844-45. These two concepts are the foundation of my analysis of the present

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (17049)	12/9/2000 8:33:14 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

When our courts cut 4/3 -- that means that a NEW law has been created. I disagree. That decision was carefully worded to pass the diligence of the US SC looking over their shoulder. Zeev had a great post on the subject. Message 14980921

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (17049)	12/9/2000 8:54:14 AM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Bollocks. If one of those 4 judges had been of the same opinion as one of the 3 dissenting, there would have been a different outcome. So you are happy with your system that decides a president based on one person's opinion? It's a lottery. Either you don't have a sufficient law, or the interpretation of the law by at least 3 of the judges is incompetent. You would think an election would be pretty clear cut. We have elections too and when it is close we have recounts, and those recounts often produce exactly the same number. Can't you guys count?