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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (324)	12/10/2000 1:55:08 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 644

I agree with, you particularly in view of Scalia bringing up as an argument that not all the votes are counted with the same standard. It happens to be Florida's law that there is no "physical" standard in "determining voter's intent" (but looking at the ballot and making a local determination). There is nothing new with Florida not treating all its voters the same way. Some counties have optical scanners where only .3% of all votes show no vote for the president spot and other counties have punch cards where 1.5% of all voters show no "preference" for the President spot. Even amongst the various punch systems there are major operational differences which inhibit a "fair count". So, what is that "canard" of lack of standards? Maybe because the Florida voting system lacks "equal protection" for all voters intrinsically, the whole election there should be thrown out. Zeev

To: Carl R. who wrote (324)	12/10/2000 3:34:31 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Hi Carl - it appears this fellow may win some points in your book. From LA Times, latimes.com But the problem for Bush--and potentially for the court, as well--is that the "legitimacy" of Bush's victory will remain in doubt as long as the ballots remain uncounted in Florida, said University of Utah law professor Michael McConnell, who served as a Justice Department and White House lawyer under Ronald Reagan. The reputation of both Bush and the court could suffer further if academics or news organizations eventually count the disputed votes--something that Florida's open records laws makes quite likely--and discover that they favor Gore, he and others noted. "I suppose the logic of it is that the court should say they should burn all the ballots," McConnell said sarcastically. Funny is that he is also winning points in my book. Therefore, maybe we can agree on something after all <G>! Of course, you can always protect yourself from being too close to my position by thinking this fellow has deteriorated since his Reagan years <VBG>! best, Bosco

To: Carl R. who wrote (324)	12/10/2000 3:56:55 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

Hi Carl & all - ok, I ve to admit, I am totally confused now! From the same article, latimes.com the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court has suggested, Circuit Court Finds No 'Irreparable Harm' The 11th Circuit found that permitting the recounts created no "irreparable harm." However, in an attempt to prevent anything decisive from happening, the appeals court also ruled that no results from the recount could be certified until the Supreme Court had considered the case. Which I ve stuck my neck out in the other thread to predict this would be the case. Now, this is my confusion. I thought the 11th Circuit Court was run by Justice Anthony Kennedy [correction please if I am wrong.] So, he seemed to believe a stay was not necessary only hours before the US SC ruling, in which he was one of the five majority. Can someone explain to me the legal logic in the sudden change of position? TIA best, Bosco