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: ecommerceman who wrote (108983)	12/9/2000 11:56:54 PM
From: d.taggart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

ECOMMERCEMAN,ANOTHER DOLT, COURTS DO NOT MAKE LAWS YOU DOLT,THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH DOES,WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR EDUCATION NEWSWEEK,SALON MAGAZINE,OR THE NEW YORK TIMES,DAMN IDIOT FEST HERE TONIGHT

To: ecommerceman who wrote (108983)	12/10/2000 12:48:28 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769667

Ecommerceman, You say there is no reason the Fla. Legislature couldn't ...but you've already been offered a reason. Even THEY can't change the rules after the game starts. Your suggestion is otherwise reasonable. It's even possible that it would be considered proper by a Supreme Court, despite the "changing rules" rule, if it was found to offer a just fairness. However, nothing requires the winner, Bush, to partake. Gore alone could seek your plan alone, and it wouldn't be so less appealing for Bush's lack of participation as to greatly hinder the possibility of it happening. With or without both men behind it, its chances would be slim, IMO. Period. A much simpler solution would have been, certainly, for Gore to have asked for all territory to be counted within the 72hr limit, instead of acting on the advice of Daley as he likely did. If he couldn't get it done, he'd concede like a man. Then we might have had cause to believe him when he says he just wants to count all the votes. Instead he asks us to believe the system expects County Grubbing to take place after the fact, when such is plainly wrong and against the American spirit of fair play. A divided country indeed. What did you think we have had all along? Certainly to imagine Gore hasn't exacerbated this situation seems wrong to me. Dan B

To: ecommerceman who wrote (108983)	12/10/2000 12:50:13 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Ecommerceman, You say there is no reason the Fla. Legislature couldn't ...but you've already been offered a reason. Even THEY can't change the rules after the game starts. Your suggestion is otherwise reasonable. And, it's even possible that it would be considered proper by a Supreme Court, despite the "changing rules" rule, if it was found to offer a just fairness. However, nothing requires the winner, Bush, to partake. Gore alone could seek your plan alone, and it wouldn't be so less appealing for Bush's lack of participation as to greatly hinder the possibility of it happening. With or without both men behind it, its chances would be slim, IMO. Period. A much simpler solution would have been, certainly, for Gore to have asked for all territory to be counted within the 72hr limit, instead of acting on the advice of Daley as he likely did. If he couldn't get it done, he'd concede like a man. Then we might have had cause to believe him when he says he just wants to count all the votes. Instead he asks us to believe the system expects County Grubbing to take place after the fact, when such is plainly wrong and against the American spirit of fair play. A divided country indeed. What did you think we have had all along? Certainly to imagine Gore hasn't exacerbated this situation seems wrong to me. Dan B

To: ecommerceman who wrote (108983)	12/10/2000 8:20:09 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

When you say that the United States Supreme Court "normally favors state sovereignty" - well, of course - but the United States Constitution and the United States Code preempt state laws which conflict with them in federal matters, in this case, the election of the President of the United States. Also, you don't seem to understand that the principles being brought to bear here - the United States Supreme Court is going to adhere to the strict letter of the Florida Election Code, even though the Florida Supreme Court did not. Although the United States Supreme Court ordinarily gives great deference to a decision by a state supreme court interpreting state law, if the interpretation is plainly erroneous, and the matter is of federal importance, they are not going to be deferential.