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: bob who wrote (8793)	12/9/2000 3:54:21 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Bob there are 2 things this election has proven. 1) It ain't over till it's over 2) It ain't over It will be over when one of them concedes

To: bob who wrote (8793)	12/9/2000 4:57:34 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

<ot>Hi bob, not entirely. I ve not read the FLSC ruling; however, according to the commentators [of different strips :),] the FLSC actually did answer the USSC by wrapping the ruling with statutory language, i.e., their basis is that of FL Constitution as implemented by FL Legislature. Also, I heard the citing of the FLSC Chief Justice being the author of the dissent as if he held higher power. While I ve deep reverence for all 7 justices [as well as all 9 in the highest court --- thought I would throw that in for good measure :),] I think the FLSC Chief Justice seat is on rotational basis. Surely, he is one of the 3 who dissented, but like the USSC, each judge has a vote, being the Chief Justice doesn't mean s/he has extra voting power, as some of the spinmeisters have tried to suggest. best, Bosco