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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (122004)	12/11/2000 2:50:13 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I would argue tomorrow that KH changed the election rules by blocking hand recounts, Intellectually your argument is, and I don't wish to seem indelicate here, dorky. :)) The "Rule" that "KH" followed exactly was "seven days". The rule is based on the Legislative assumption that clear intent may be readily determined in a VERY short period of time. The longer the time it takes to determine "intent" the less clear that intent, by law, is. One of the reasons that we have been dicking around for the last month is that for some reason, the attorneys for Bush (at the state appellate level, at least) seem to understand less about legal reasoning than you do. What Boies (and he is brilliant) argued in part in J. Sauls' court was that these ballots were votes for Gore more than they were votes for Bush. Sauls ruled two things that will be of moment to the Supreme Court tomorrow. One, that Boies did not establish as a statistical fact that these uncounted ballots were illegally not counted; and, Two, that he had not established that any of them were legal 'votes'. He held that Boies must establish these things by a reasonable probability. The FSC to overrule Sauls, changed the Burden of Proof so that in effect there was no burden of proof. All Boies had to do they said, in essence, was present them. I have BRIEFLY looked at the new statute which Boies claimed changed the burden of proof. It is, simply not there. By changing the Burden after the election, as to how to count votes, you are changing the rules and you are changing not what is, but how to determine a "vote". Richard argued this point very poorly. Ted Olsen, argued the same point in front of the USSC very well. I think Richard sought to change his mind in a supplemental brief filed 24 hours after the case was heard, telling the FSC they had no right to do this, and I am guessing, that pissed them off. So tomorrow, the USSC may say changing the B/P changes what is a vote, and they may remind the FSC, that they have vacated the last order of the FSC and that the only cert date hanging around in the Nov. 7th date. Which is harsh, hyper-technical, but unfortunately, true. Tammarrooo it will be Olsen v. Boies. Laaaaadies and Genntlemeeenn.......THE BATTLE FOR THE CHADDLE and the outcome will affect Seattle!! (all of the above is based on sporadic miniscule noodling only, one would have to spend a great deal of time on this to really get a good answer, and there's no need, we'll know eventually)

To: Scumbria who wrote (122004)	12/12/2000 3:49:01 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

RE:"If George W Bush is willing to take the Presidency knowing that all the votes were not counted, and knowing that he might of lost had they all been counted, and knowing that he was the popular vote loser for the whole country- then I will concede. I strongly encourage him to call for a full, impartial count of the undervotes, but will abide by his decision if he chooses to not take that personal risk." This will make Bush look like the chickens**t that he is, hiding behind the USSC's cr@p ruling." It might make Gore appear more like a "SORE LOSERMAN"? Jim

To: Scumbria who wrote (122004)	12/13/2000 10:46:13 AM
From: ratan lal	Respond to of 186894

If George W Bush is willing to take the Presidency knowing that all the votes were not counted, and knowing that he might of lost had they all been counted, and knowing that he was the popular vote loser for the whole country- then I will concede. I strongly encourage him to call for a full, impartial count of the undervotes, but will abide by his decision if he chooses to not take that personal risk." Could you break that down into 'small and simple' sentences so that Bush can comprehend (sorry, i mean understand).