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: SBHX who wrote (307)	12/9/2000 3:35:02 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

OK, now I have to ask one more question. When you refer to the "level of impartiality in 3 of the sitting judges", are you implying that they have a high level or a low level? Several judges have impressed me as having a high level of impartiality, including Judge Clark who ruled for Bush even after Bush asked her to recuse herself since she had recently been passed over for promotion by Jeb Bush. I am also extremely impressed with the chief justice as well, for both his impartiality and his understanding of the law. I agree that it would be a stretch to consider these career Democrats to be GOP partisans, but it doesn't take much imagination to see as Democratic partisans the three who were willing to take the partisan line and overturn Sauls no matter what the legal principles at stake were, and no matter what the authority of the court to do so was. As for the swing vote who demanded at least some fairness, I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt as to impartiality, and simply label him/her as misguided. The FSC is judicial activism at its best/worst. They have demonstrated the ablity to completely ignore the law as written in order to create the result they want. I have to admit that I am still in shock that a court as high as a state supreme court could have so little regard for legal principles. As for the question of whether the result they ordered, whether arrived at by legal means or not, is fair, the answer is that there are some major problems with it even though on its surface it sounds fair. Some of these are: 1. Ambiguous rules permit totally different counting methods in the various Counties. Palm Beach reversed it's 1990 rule that dimpled chads could never be counted and adopted a much more liberal rule. Then Broward went a step further and counted any dimpled chad. Note that ballots must be counted using rules in place prior to the election, so this appears to be a violation of Federal Election law. 2. Certain counties will not be recounted and their existing counts will be used even though they used unreasonable counting methods, in particular Broward. (see above) 3. State law specifically provides that when recounts are done, all ballots must be counted. In this case the court must have read all ballots need not be counted. 4. In deciding whether or not to do a full recount, Miami started by counting the most heavily Democrat precincts, and then decided to stop before moving on to Republican areas such as little Havana. These incomplete results will be used and only undercounts from the rest of the county will be counted. Obviously this isn't right. If you are going to count part of a county you have to count the whole thing. It will be fascinating to watch this situation continue to deteriorate. The constitutional crisis is well on its way. The next question is, will it bring an economic crisis with it? Carl