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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (679)	12/9/2000 10:33:43 AM
From: Oak Tree	Respond to of 6089

Right on. The winner of the white house faces a huge backlash in 2002.

To: Poet who wrote (679)	12/9/2000 11:21:41 AM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

Good morning to all. I was up early, composing my tirade about Bush's request for an emergency stay, claiming the recount could do him "irreperable harm," even if the court were to later throw it out, when today's editorial by Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com beat me to it. Here's an excerpt ============ To counter these political realities, Bush has pursued a three-pronged strategy: he has claimed victory, he has frustrated or blocked legal recounts, and he has relied on Florida's Republican officials to hand over the 25 electoral votes he needs to win the Electoral College. Now, faced with the Florida Supreme Court ruling requiring a statewide recount of so-called "under-votes," Bush’s new tactic is to turn the concept of a court injunction on its head. His lawyers have rushed to federal court seeking to stall the state-court-ordered recount until after Dec. 12 -- next Tuesday -- when Bush’s certified victory would presumably become official and render any recount meaningless. In demanding the stay, Bush’s lawyers argued that the vote counting was a threat to “the integrity of the electoral process” and could cause Bush "irreparable injury." But that's not really the case. After all, there would be nothing irreparable about conducting the recount and then, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with Bush, to throw out the recount. On the other hand, there would be irreparable harm to Gore’s campaign if an injunction blocks the counting of the votes and the Dec. 12 deadline preserves Bush’s shaky 154-vote margin. A typical injunction would come in, say, a death-penalty case when a stay prevents an execution from being carried out. That way, a court can hear arguments on overturning the sentence and possibly prevent something irreversible, like an execution. Here, the Bush position is akin to requiring the execution be carried out before the court hears the case. Bush's lawyers want to use a federal injunction to inflict irreparable harm, not prevent it. =========== Lots more at: consortiumnews.com ... Mezz -