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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:44:29 PM
From: Tim Luke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I am saddened tonight. I am saddened because for the first time in my professional life I do not feel that the Supreme Court has acted honorably>>>>>>>>>>>>> sniff sniff now isnt that just too f-ing bad...al gore is a disgrace to America

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:47:19 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What is your source for the updated unofficial lead by Bush? The figures I saw on MSNBC said that he was gaining votes across the board (not a whole lot, but he had a net gain). LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:47:48 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ (I know it is a cheap substitute but those are violins playing) ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:49:35 PM
From: Tim Luke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

lawdog. is this who you really want to run our country salug.org

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:50:49 PM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 769667

I really believe you are creating Gore votes. Trying to find dents , scratches and counting them as a Gore vote is not what this country is all about imo.

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:52:28 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I can see why you are sad. If the shoe were on the other foot, I might be bellyaching, too. You point out that the USSC's decision was based on party lines, but I would point out that there are two sides to that equation. Could the 4 dissenters be as wrong in my eyes, as the 5 consentors are in your mind? If the entire Florida SC had affirmed their opinion yesterday, the argument could be made that politics is out of hand. However, their opinion was so weak that the three senior Justices dissented on the exact grounds for which it is in jeopardy at this time. In the end, those three will be viewed as the most honorable, imho. They chose to apply the Rule of Law over the rule of convenient judicial activism. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:55:01 PM
From: LLCoolG	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Lawdog, I have been pretty much a silent reader, and find you to be pretty pathetic. The FSC decision was 4-3, with all Democrats. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for their Friday decision. The SC decision was 5-4. Not exacly a ringing endorsement for stopping it. The margin of error in counting 6,000,000 votes would far exceed the margin of victory for either side, despite what anyone thinks is fair. It has become so convoluted that nobody could possibly ever know who really won, because that snapshot of November 7, 2000 will not ever live again, and the evidence from that day does not, and never will exist in that state again--both legally and physically. I am glad you have wasted countless hours preaching here. I'm also glad to know that despite allegedly having a law degree, you lack the common sense and objectivity you pine for in the three branches of government. Kind of like Animal Farm, you are Napoleon. "Two Legs good, four legs bad." Anything favorable to the Democrats good, anything favorable to the Republicans bad. From pig to man, from man to pig, you could no longer tell the difference. Flip a coin, loser. Bush called Tails, and tails showed. There is no injustice, just the way the coin came down, based on how tight the election really was. Lastly, being a pro-choice Republican is never a fun thing. I certainly hope that should GW take office, the SC is not stacked against Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I fail to understand how abortion is an SC issue. But for people like you, I hope you twist in the wind agonizing over it. People like me will just accept the consequences and get on with life like adults, like we always do. G

To: lawdog who wrote (108406)	12/9/2000 6:55:35 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

lawdog, I am stunned by the US Supreme interfering in a state election to stop the counting of lawful votes without even holding a hearing. The US Supreme Court has denied "due process of law" to the public. Apparently, Justice Steven is just as shocked. The vote broke along political lines with the four moderates on the court voting against the stay. How could Bush suffer irreparable harm from the counting of votes? As you know, the Supreme Court has a long history of not interfering in state elections. I do not want to hear them talk about federalism or states rights.