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 (109608)	12/10/2000 2:12:12 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 769670

Your speculation aside, I would say that you are using a subjective interpretation of what the word Chide means. I see your point, and will let it go at that. The door is open for FSSC to discover a state law that provides them legal footing. But failing to do so, they are then properly chided.

To: lawdog who wrote (109608)	12/10/2000 2:24:44 PM
From: Dave Gore	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

On the U.S. Supreme Court's Outrageous Decision - my thoughts in words. "Diana Ross and the Supremes" could have made a more just ruling on Saturday, December 9, 2000. The decision on that fateful day by the U.S. Supreme Court was shocking and will not be soon forgotten by historians, scholars, and many millions of Americans. It could very well (illegally) alter the future course of American history. What went wrong? The U.S. Supreme Court made it crystal clear that it too is infected with political bias after their stunning decision to "stay" the manual recount statewide in Florida, a decision that many had cheered a day earlier when the Florida Supreme Court's ruling came down. Finally, a legitimate end to the election battle was in sight. But it was not to be, and it is not a pretty realization that resulted from their action. Indeed it shakes the very soul and integrity of our country's most esteemed judicial body. To overturn the ruling of the Florida State Supreme Court by "messing" in a state's business is appalling enough. But the apparent reason for it was even more troubling. The primary reason for their action was supposedly because no "equal standards" were being applied to the manual recounting procedure statewide. Sounds somewhat reasonable on the surface, but the problem is that Florida Law (yes, Florida LAW) does not provide a state standard (which the Florida Supreme Court correctly pointed out). It, in fact, mandates each county to establish their own manual recount procedures and standards. Many counter, "Well, it's a stupid and unfair law". Probably true and most agree. But unfortunately that legally should not bear on any Court's decision, let alone that of the highest court in the land! The Law must be abided by, unless and until it is changed. Almost every reasonable person has been saying all along that you cannot change the law AFTER the election that was in place BEFORE the election. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that. Their decision sets a dangerous precedent and may undermine every future decision they render, especially those issues divided on partisan grounds. It may also serve to de-legitimize even further the office of this Presidency if Mr. Bush is victorous. I am sure the Florida Supreme Court wanted to employ a statewide recounting standard but that would have involved altering the Law, something they ironically had already been accused of in an earlier ruling they made a couple week ago. But they correctly withstood tempatation and made the decision not to force any specific standards upon the county canvassing boards. When all is said and done, it can be understood why citizens for Bush or Gore act the way they do. After all, they just want their guy to win. What cannot be believed, however, are the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court who ignored Florida Law and may have altered the fair resolution of the most important election of the 21st Century to date. Something just went very wrong in America.

To: lawdog who wrote (109608)	12/10/2000 2:37:05 PM
From: eWhartHog	Respond to of 769670

On the subject of partisanship, could anyone other than a Democratic operative claim to believe that a Republican appeal of Judge Sauls’ ruling would have been denied (probably 7-0) in the FL Supreme Court had the Bush/Gore vote and legal positions been the reverse? Clearly the FL Supreme Court’s decision was politically motivated. Jeb Bush’s affirmation of Lawton Chiles’ appointment of Peggy Quince provided the marginal vote to continue this national absurdity. Gov. Jeb should have recognized that since the FL court was already stacked with Democrats that a Republican appointment was needed to provide some balance. So much for “bipartisanship.”