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: D. Long who wrote (109984)	12/10/2000 11:52:49 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>>>By the sounds of it, you have already decided if the USSC is impartial.<<< Nope, just the opposite. I say the US SC did not have jurisdiction to rule as they did this time. When the US SC sent the FSc's previous ruling back down they said that the Florida court should rely only on laws made by the Legislature in making their decisions in this matter. So this time the FSC did exactly that and the US SC came up with a different reason to make a ruling that wasn't in line with Florida's. That is enough to convince me that the US SC is not impartial. It looked to me like the US SC said that the FSC should have made some rules as to what a vote on those uncounted ballots would look like, but if they had the US SC would have said they did the same thing wrong again.