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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (8767)	12/9/2000 8:24:29 AM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 30051

Zeev, great post. I agree with you that the FSC decision was a truly great one. These are historic times. Jay

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (8767)	12/9/2000 8:49:45 AM
From: bob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

Zeev, I haven't read the whole ruling either and am not referring to this last one by the FL-SC. I am referring to the first ruling that extended the 7 day recount period for another 5-7(?) days. I agree that a hand count would be in the peoples best interest if it were not for one thing. Not one court has guided the people doing these counts as to what is a vote (dimples, ect) and what is not. The FL-SC in it's wisdom felt that a recount was needed but dodged the real issue on how it could be done fairly by throwing it to the lower court. The lower court late last night decided that it also would throw the issue right back in the counters face and let them figure it out. IMO the FL-SC while deciding that more recounts were needed left out the one thing that was most important in getting a fare count...What is voter intent when dimples, hanging chads and other things come into play with the ballots.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (8767)	12/9/2000 8:57:03 AM
From: jjs_ynot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

>>> believe that country will be much better off finding now what the real vote was and not wait until we have a {resident in place, and then, under the "Freedom of Information act" have the Miami Herald (?) count the votes and let us know in three months that the wrong guy is in the White House. <<< At this point the country will never know the real vote. The real vote count has been destroyed by continued handling and rehandling of the ballots, subjective interpretations of dimples on one side or the other of voters intent, and piecemeal recounting. The truth that you seek is no longer available.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (8767)	12/9/2000 11:34:59 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 30051

<<Throwing Sauls judgment based on finding that he did not apply the right law (that law that require the evidence, namely the disputed ballots, be examined), was not writing new law either.>> Zeev - Sauls erred in many ways on the law One of his rulings was that partial recounts were invalid and could not be accepted. The BUSH legal team fought one court battle too many. In a Federal Appellate decision that came after Sauls opinion, ruled that in fact there is nothing wrong with partial recounts. It is ironic that coming out of this we get an entire recount. What Gore asked for in the first place. Bush would have been a HERO if he agreed to this in the first place. Especially if he won. Now he will in all liklihood be looked on as the sore loser. M