SI
SI
discoversearch

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: sunshadow who wrote (109898)12/10/2000 10:04:42 PM
From: sunshadow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
WHAT LAW IS
Another great one from Sullivan >

Beneath this current impasse is a deep difference of opinion about what law actually is. For some liberals, the law is an instrument to bring about a better, more just, and more democratic society. For some conservatives, in contrast, the law is the primary mechanism by which we protect ourselves from each other. Its role is not to do good, but to prevent harm. That's why when it comes to technical matters, like legal deadlines or dimpled chads, liberals are far more likely to say, 'Oh forget about the details. What matters is the end result.' Or as Al Gore's Supreme Court brief puts it, 'Voters have important rights to have their ballots counted, and the magnitude of those rights dwarfs' any legal technicalities that might get in the way. The problem with this, of course, is precedent. If laws and legal deadlines can simply be waived at any time, the settled nature of law is destroyed, and an essential part of its efficacy is undermined. We become not a nation of laws, but of lawyers and judges. This election was so close that it seems to me that any attempt to overturn its result should rest strictly on the letter of the law - not some imaginative Court's reinterpretation of it. SCOTUS now has an opportunity to remind us of that fact. I sure hope they do. (12/10, 7.15PM)

Andrew Sullivan



To: sunshadow who wrote (109898)12/10/2000 10:06:02 PM
From: SecularBull  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Is that like the 58 votes that Boies was bragging about yesterday? Did anyone catch Russert call Boies on that latest of lies?

LoF



To: sunshadow who wrote (109898)12/10/2000 10:14:25 PM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
The FSC made footnote of the 174 figure. If I remember right, that came from what was done and turned in at the deadline. The 215 was what was arrived at later. However, the man from the Secretary of State office, in the courtroom the other evening before the counting started back up, said the 215 number had never been submitted, even late.

Dan B