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: Zeev Hed who wrote (331)	12/10/2000 9:46:35 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

I agree that so far the ones attacking the court system are the Republicans. On the other hand, so far the FSC has made several controversial rulings, while the USSC managed to do something by doing nothing, and hasn't taken a controversial position. We shall see what happens if, as expected, they do something controversial next week. On the other hand, you can't argue that the Democrats attacked the executive branch in Florida, calling Harris a political hack. In fact that was the first use of that particular term in this whole sordid affair. In fact Harris was just doing what the legislature had commanded, and Gore would have been better off to let her do it and to have started the election contest back then. He ended up in an election contest anyway, but had little time because of the time he spent earlier. Next, the Democrats have attacked the Electoral College, another part of our constitution. And finally, the Democrats have also attacked the voting process and accused it of being unfair. They attacked the butterfly ballot. They attacked the punch cards and seemed to imply that the ability to punch a ballot was somehow related to party affiliation or to race, or whatever, and that therefore the election was unfair to blacks, Democrats, etc. They also attacked the system for counting votes, implying that counting by machine was somehow biased and inaccurate. Thus neither party is behaving well. The end result will a reduction in confidence in our system of election, our elected public officials, and our judiciary. It will also create doubt about the legitimacy of our next president (assuming that we eventually get one), regardless of who it is. How can any of this be good? Carl