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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Atin who wrote (724)	12/10/2000 1:42:52 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

yes,Scalia said it would be injurious to have Bush declared president when a count of the undervote could show Gore was the actual winner.This would injure his ability to rule as president--now if that isn't Catch-22 BS,i don't know what is? max

To: Atin who wrote (724)	12/10/2000 3:27:10 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

===== The federal ruling made clear that the count was being halted because the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority feared that the recount would show that Vice President Al Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush did. That outcome would “cast a cloud” over the “legitimacy” of an eventual Bush presidency if the U.S. Supreme Court later decided to throw out the Gore gains as illegal, explained Justice Antonin Scalia in an opinion speaking for the majority. “Count first, and rule upon the legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires,” Scalia wrote. In other words, it was better for the U.S. public not to know for sure that Gore got the most votes if – as expected – the Supreme Court’s five hard-line conservatives rule on Monday to prohibit any more vote-counting and effectively award Bush the presidency. For the American people to realize that they gave Gore more votes nationally – as well as in Florida – while Bush moves into the White House simply wouldn’t generate “the public acceptance [that] democratic stability requires,” as Scalia put it. If such logic had appeared in the old Soviet Union, we would be pulling out copies of George Orwell’s Animal Farm to search for comparable phrases. ... For American political institutions to ignore the will of the voters – and to wrap partisanship in the judicial robes of the nation’s highest court – will almost certainly be followed by greater erosion of political freedom in the United States and eventually elsewhere. Illegitimacy and repression are two of history’s most common bedfellows. Perhaps most chilling, at least for the moment, is the now-unavoidable recognition that the U.S. Supreme Court, the country’s final arbiter of justice, has transformed itself into the right wing’s ultimate political weapon. A dark cloud is descending over the nation. ============= excerpts from consortiumnews.com