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: jlallen who wrote (110140)	12/11/2000 9:26:05 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Bush's brief isn't due until this afternoon, so what the hell did the majority base their opinion on Scalia reads the Drudge report and Thomas listens to Limbaugh. Scalia: "Briefs, we don't need no stinking briefs". Thomas: "Right On!, Big Time!". Scalia: "Clarence, I was talking about papers, put your pants back on". TP

To: jlallen who wrote (110140)	12/11/2000 9:38:51 AM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

But you can deny a count of legal votes now and determine later if you should have counted them before? That's the biggest load of bs that has ever come from your keyboard, JLA. You can't count now then determine later if the count is lawful Really. It's "ridiculous". You don't have the foggiest idea what the S.Ct. based the decision to stop the counting of legal votes yet you call it ridiculous to state that they didn't rely on adequate evidence. The harm is great to the election and this kind of injunction is rarely granted. I read Scalia's opnion as showing a pure political motive. Scalia is saying, let's not count those ballots because if we do, Bush may not be the winner. Purely poilitical. Nobody else in this world would receive the same treatment. It stinks. I assume the Court decided on the basis of the papers the Bush team filed to request the stay. That argument that the Court didn't know what the arguments were is ridiculous. I assume the arguments were laid out in those papers and that the arguments are very similar to the ones the USSC heard last go 'round. As an officer of the court you should be shocked as well, JLA. Politics aside, this politcal decision making by the S.Ct. of the United States calls into question our entire legal system. I know you really want Bush elected President, but the S.Ct. need not destroy its reputation in the process. If you think Bush must win at all costs, then you may disagree. What is Bush winning? Do you think the Senate Democrats are going to allow Bush to steal the Presidency then pass a bunch of far right legislation? Bush lost the popular vote, he lost the electoral vote, and he's taking the Presidency through thievery. The Senate Democrats to filibuster for two years so we can get a Senate Demolib majority and prevent you and the rest of the GOPers from pushing legislation and crazy right wing S.Ct. justices through the Congress. You will not be allowed to perpetrate a hostile takeover of the United States of America.

To: jlallen who wrote (110140)	12/11/2000 11:18:34 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 769667

On Irreparable Harm Let's first acknowledge the hypocrisy of both sides; were the situation transposed, Bush would be arguing for recounts and Gore the reverse...such is sadly a rather profound comment on the character, or absence thereof, of American politics. Why has the Supreme Court, as a Federal institution, chosen to involve itself in what would appear to be a state legal issue? Despite the dominion and wide latitude afforded to state courts, state law cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution. By way of simple example, the Florida legislature could (hypothetically) pass a law MANDATING cruel and unusual punishment for child molesters. While such could become 'law' within the state, the Supreme Court would certainly strike down any attempt to impose such a penalty since it directly contravenes the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. So why is this concept applicable to the election and Gore's appeal? Application of the Equal Protection doctrine of the U.S. Constitution requires that each vote be treated equally. Simply put, nobody's vote can count more or less than anybody else's. So what? Well, let's compare the recounts in Miami Dade with those of Broward County. First, it's clear that the methodology for determining voter intent differed between the two canvassing Boards. It is far more likely that an incomplete chad perforation has been accepted as a vote in Broward than in Miami Dade. While this may be legal and acceptable under existing Florida law, which empowers the canvassing Boards to divine voter intent, such a differential runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution since votes are not being treated equally. Worse, because of the stop and go nature of the Florida recounts, intra-county standards have changed, i.e. part of the Miami Dade recount was accepted under the protocols of the local canvassing Board while the latest recount was taking place under the auspices of the Leon county process. The process would definitionally appear to conflict with the Constitution's Equal Protection requirement. Such is one of the most compelling arguments for the Supreme Court's involvement. Florida Circuit Court judge Sanders Sauls specifically commented in his ruling to this effect and it appears in the Supreme Court's majority opinion (in granting Sunday's injunction) that the Justices felt the recounted ballots would be deemed 'illegal.' What a conundrum! Gore believes that a recount would give him enough votes to pass Bush. Depending on the standards used to interpret voter intent, such may be true. On the other hand, the Supreme Court appears very likely to rule (along with Sanders Sauls) that the recounted votes were illegal because they were compiled in a process deemed unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution. The Liberal justices, i.e. the minority Supreme Court opinion, wanted to count the votes first and decide on their legality later. The Conservative justices, i.e. the majority opinion, believe that since the vote count is most probably going to be deemed illegal and without force, there is no point in continuing. In my opinion, the truth of the matter can never be known. I am totally confident that under one set of standards, Vice President Gore could extract enough votes from the recount to overcome the Bush lead. I am equally confident that under another more restrictive set of standards, Bush's lead could be sustained. Unfortunately we find ourselves esconced in morass of partisan politics divided equally down the middle that prevents an objective search for truth. Who is right and who is wrong? It is certainly possible that more Floridians set out to vote for Gore than Bush. It is evident that despite voter confusion, inexperience, illiteracy and other inefficiencies, the existing totals favor Bush. It is also possible that Bush voters in the Panhandle didn't bother to go to the polls after the networks called the state for Gore. It is possible that the recount could go either way. Still, it is not inconceivable that an omniscient being could divine voter intent and conclude the race to be a dead heat. In the absence of clarity and a clear mandate, all we are left with is the rule of law and a system of interpreting the same. I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of partisans of either party sorting through ballots with the intent of divining voter intent. At the end of the day, true voter intent is known only to the person who punched (or attempted to punch) the ballot last November. The Gore recount will not, and can not, produce an absolute, accurate result...it would simply produce another result. It's possible that this result could be closer to true voter intent...but it's also possible that it could be still further removed. Unfortunately our arbitrators, i.e. the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) and the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC), have been accused of bias. Certainly it would appear that the FSC has a pro-Gore leaning while the USSC has tilted toward Bush. In my opinion, the FSC is further off-base because it unilaterally and rather capriciously dismissed the findings of Judge Sauls trial court. Remember, it is the trial court that is the finder of fact and the arbitrator of truth. The FSC basically dismissed Sauls findings of fact, and this is quite troublesome. In his descent, FSC Chief Justice Wells specifically admonished the majority for departing from the rule of law and stated for the record that their decision "would not withstand scrutiny." In my opinion, Justice Wells was openly pleading for the U.S. Supreme Court to intercede. The tragedy here is not about who becomes President; sadly, the real world differences between Bush and Gore are hardly worth the print expended to excoriate them. The tragedy is that no matter who wins, some significant cohort of our populace will feel that the game was rigged. This is the true irreparable harm.