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.

Pastimes : Trading the markets..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1655)	12/10/2000 7:48:14 AM
From: William H Huebl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4583

Interestingly enough, it is only in the past several decades that the US Supreme Court has NOT been political. There was an interesting discussion on TV last night reviewing the politicizing of the Court. So it looks like they just came out of hiding, that's all.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1655)	12/10/2000 3:35:02 PM
From: Lee Lichterman III	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4583

How can you conveniently over look that the Florida Supreme court also was divided over party lines and that there was such a strongly worded dissenting opinion by the chief justice that the case begged for review by the Supreme court? The Fla dissent basically said plainly there was no legal basis for this decision and it was an attempt to put Gore in the White House by the Democratic court members voting themselves. I don't see how the US Supremes could have said no. I don't think they will vote the actual case along party lines. They are only going to see if the dissenting opinion was an attempt at a Bush Push by the chief justice or ir it bears real merit. It could still go either way. I think the dissenting piece made it impossible not to hear. BWDIK Good Luck, Lee

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1655)	12/10/2000 4:12:25 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4583

On to the markets! However, there is a problem in your argument in this case. If the federal law of equal protection has been violated by disparate counting of ballots, one needs to step in whether you respect states and their laws or not. Presidential election CANNOT be trumped by state constitutions.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (1655)	12/10/2000 6:01:18 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4583

GZ, I'm glad someone has "fun" with the markets! Here's a couple of posts that are worth reading: ***************************************** To: kapkan4u who wrote (121714) From: opalapril Saturday, Dec 9, 2000 5:44 PM ET Reply # of 121970 The Florida Supreme Court decision was correct under the law. The court was merely trying to enforce existing state statutes -- common in all states -- which provide for hand recounts when machines fail to tally or read all cast votes. (Laws which the Florida legislature very recently strengthened, by the way, to prevent a repetition of widespread vote fraud in Miami-Dade where the anti-Castro Cuban crazies now wield far more political power over the election process, and local government in general, than their numbers would justify.) To be sure, some Florida voters may have consciously decided to skip the presidential line while others intended to punch the card but failed to completely dislodge the chad because of the decidedly poor design of the punchcard system. Voting is not a grade school handwriting exam. Neatness does not count. Only the voter's manifest intent does. In every state, including Florida, where the ballot manifests an intent of the voter to register his/her choice, that vote is to be counted regardless of some machine's inability to read it, or some accidental blotch of ink. That has been the law in Florida at least going back to 1876, when Tilden was cheated out of a clear Florida victory, and until today it remained the law in Florida. By contrast, what the Rehnquist-Scalia majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is attempting, as Scalia's concurring opinion makes utterly plain, is to spend its prestige and corrupt its constitutional purposes so as to 'lend' an air of 'legitmacy' to the 'presidency' of George Bush -- mind you, before Bush has been declared the winner on January 6 when the Electoral College votes are announced in Congress. If the Rehnquist-Scalia axis succeeds, tens of millions Americans will agree that two centuries of democracy in the United States have just been betrayed not by a state supreme court applying long standing state election laws, but by a radical right-wing cabal on the U.S. Supreme Court. ********************************************************** To: opalapril who wrote (697) From: opalapril Saturday, Dec 9, 2000 5:11 PM ET Reply # of 733 Scalia's concurring opinion leaves no doubt that this Republican-appointed court majority is about to plant a Bush on the White House grounds, the law be damned. Scalia writes that full hand counts "in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." Since when does the Supreme Court concern itself with 'clouds' and 'claims' of 'legitmacy' by politicians? Suddenly, it is as if Article III of the Constitution were amended to say the Supreme Court "shall also be the p.r. firm for the candidate it likes." If the Rehnquist-Scalia axis succeeds in preventing a full hand count of all Florida ballots, it will do more to rob Bush of any 'claim' of 'legitmacy' than everything that has gone before.This would mark the end of democracy in America.