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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim_p who wrote (81178)	12/9/2000 3:28:45 PM
From: JungleInvestor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

OT: Dec. 9 — By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered recounting of undervotes in Florida to stop, pending a hearing on Monday at 11 a.m. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurrence to the court’s one-paragraph majority ruling, claiming that Bush made a showing of irreparable harm by virture of the lack of uniform standards for conducting the recounts. He argued that counting first and ruling on the legality of the count later will undermine the legitimacy of an ultimate Bush victory. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter joined. Stevens argued that it is Gore, not Bush who will suffer irreparable harm. Briefs of no more than 50 pages are due by Sunday at 4:00 pm. Oral arguments are set for Monday morning at 11:00 am.

To: jim_p who wrote (81178)	12/9/2000 3:33:02 PM
From: BCherry168	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

It seems that every court that has heard any part of this dispute between Bush and Gore has done the right thing, except for the Florida Supreme Court. A stay by the majority of the US Supreme Court in these circumstances is a strong indication that that majority is prepared to reverse the Florida Supreme Court. I am personally surprised that they did so, even though I do feel the Florida Supreme Court ignored Federal Law and the Constitution. I fully expected the count to go on while the US Supremes were considering the case. The one thing I would like to say about this process is that the rule of law is going to prevail. All of the legal maneuvering, while perhaps disgusting to most people, represents one of the basic strengths of our system. We are deciding who is going to be our President according to the rule of law, not by revolution in the streets. It is still entirely uncertain who is going to win, even a month since the vote, but whoever does win will do so because the law says he should. We may agree or disagree upon the result. We may like or dislike the law that is applied. But the winner will be the lawful President of the United States. Like him or not, it will be incumbent upon all of us to accept the result. The next election is in four years. (Anybody for 6 year terms? LOL)

To: jim_p who wrote (81178)	12/9/2000 5:33:44 PM
From: isopatch	Respond to of 95453

Post excerp from SI member L3 aka L3 on recent stock market action: "When Bush was ahead on election night, futures were up big, when Gore pulled ahead the futures tanked and they tanked hard. They swapped positions all night and followed that pattern the whole time. During the post election mayhem, every time Gore looked like he had a chance, we tanked, when Bush would look like he was going to stave him off we rallied. I am to the point where I could care less who gets in and am starting to wish Gore will get it so the Democrats can take the blame for what they have done and let the Pubs clean up the mess in 4 years rather than them inheriting the bubble and getting all the bad press. Regardless of political views, I think the markets have voted numerous times and the desired outcome is obvious and it isn't pro Gore. If we got anything positive out of a Gore victory it may be a relief rally that the whole controversy is over. Yes, Gore is pro tech but he is anti big corporation, anti oil, anti motor vehicle, anti big drug company and anti just about everything else that investors have made money on other than Dot Bombs. The attempt at a soft landing isn't the time to be breaking up your biggest tech companies, taking profits away from drug companies etc. The middle of an energy crisis isn't the time to be impeding exploration of energy sources and a potential recessionary time period isn't the time to lay off workers from GM, F etc. I wonder how many tax dollars are going to be used in the PPT's attempt to goose the futures up before Monday's open? I would love to have a phone tap on the Oval Office and Summer's office over the weekend. I bet it would make the Nixon tapes sound like nursery ryhmes. <gggggg> I bet Goldman Sachs gets a big blank check Fed Xed to them Sunday night."