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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (303)	12/9/2000 10:24:18 AM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 644

Nice post, Carl. Re I frankly can't imagine any Bush supporter accepting the validity of this process. I wouldn't go so far. Theoretically, I would much prefer Bush than Gore, although now I would rather have Gore since he is inheriting a deteriorating economy and will be blamed for the mess. Still, I consider myself a Bush supporter. I think that the FSC decision is eminently fair and is the best possible decision. My guess is that there are plenty of other Bush supporters that aren't die hard zealots that agree with me. Jay

To: Carl R. who wrote (303)	12/9/2000 11:03:17 AM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Carl, The key of the recount question is the counting function (or the rules) for voter intent. If you heard Judge Burton of Palm Beach talk on CNN, it's not that Palm Beach did not wish to use the same standard as Broward. Initially they both used what is finally known as the PalmBeach rule : A. dimple with perforated hole=vote B. dimple with other dimples in other races = vote C. single dimple only with holes in other races=novote Inexplicably, after they both were well into the counting process, Broward changed their rules to count ALL dimples which changed the picture completely. I believe this was also when the GOP went from mumbling about thieves to outright screams of outrage. Palm Beach, continued on with their original agreed to rule. I noticed that Michigan had these color coded sleeves which allowed the counter to put each ballot into the sleeves to see which color they get. This seems a very fast and efficient process, but is a stricter rule than PalmBeach and will favour Bush more than Gore. ---- Comments about the FSC. There was a report that said that the original decision was 4-3 in favour of supporting Sauls' decision, but when the offer to count all 67 counties came, one switched sides. There was one interesting observation here : * Even when the counting was limited to just 3 counties, 3 of the FSC judges actually was willing to overturn Sauls. This I think speaks well about the level of impartiality in 3 of the sitting judges. Which really begs the question. Is it permissible for judges to be proactive and allow their own wish to the results of the political outcome bias their judgment? IE: in their minds, is the judiciary co-equal or superior to the legislative branch of govt? Or was this a "Go Ahead Make My Day" kind of move to the USSC? SbH

To: Carl R. who wrote (303)	12/9/2000 2:40:29 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Hi Carl - I don't know how to respond to you b/c I don't know how to interpret your language. If I interpret it literally, some of your suggestions like FLSC was the culprit [my word] of spliting the country, anarchy will rule and Texas will secede are wild beyond my imagination. Am I talking to the same person? If I should not interpret in a literal manner, how else should I interpret it? For giggle, let's me play dumb [which is not difficult for me to do, since I am <G>] and interpret some of the things you said literally. I certainly do not think FL SC was the cause of the split. For goodness sake, we have a 50/50 election, I can't see anything else more split in the middle than that. Anarchy? I certainly don't see guns and tanks in the street. However, I certainly would appreciate statemen like SecBaker stops using extreme language to plant poison in people's head. As Judge Ruth Ginsberg has warned, such impugnable language is unprecedented. If the generals start using this sort of language, I wonder what would foot soldiers do. So, maybe you are right. Anarchy may happen, but I wonder who is guilty of inciting the riot! There are many potential John McVies out there and [inflammatory] words have consequences! I hope this sort of dark scenario doesn't come about, because, unlike you, who thinks I just can't imagine anything good coming from this. Nothing good has come so far, and I think it will get worse in the future I see a lot of good has already come out. To begin with, a lot of apolitical people like myself have come to appreciate the many delicate points of American political and judicial systems. I am not particular strong in American history either. This is a great learning experience. I also gain a greater appreciation of the judicial system. I may not like all of the rulings, but I can appreciate how these judges, from state lower courts all the way to the US SC, craft their rulings. Unfortunately, I am truly sadden to see some people seek to demonize these judges if they don't agree with these judges' ruling. Clearly, the FL SC has tried to abide to US SC's warning. It is not the one to set the standard in determining the voter's intent. I don't see why the attack b/c it is stuck in the damn-if-you-do-damn-if-you-don't situation. It appears that the Bush camp prefers FSSC to cop out by not tackling the thorny issue. Should these four judges follow their colleagues b/c of peer pressure? Are we a nation to choose to sweep unpleasant and unpopular decisions under the rug? More important, it is interesting that a lot of people were actually lurkwarm to these 2 men before the election. Suddenly, they are being elevated to be the rightful heir to the throne. This is not cynicism. Rather, I see it is a good thing, a la the Wilbur's principle [from the Charlotte's Web :)] Personally, I see either can be a good President and I am eager to give my due respect. best, Bosco