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: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:09:57 AM
From: BishopsChild	Respond to of 769667

Just like I thought.......... it's ONLY if you agree with them.

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:13:03 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nah. You are blinded by your partisan hatred. JLA

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:13:44 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

It was a GREAT decision, lawdog. Sanity was returned to America with their stay. I predict the final vote will be 6-3 or 7-2 for GWB.

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:16:06 AM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

lawdog..again amazingly we look at the same set of circumstances and arrive at completely different conclusions!!

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:17:31 AM
From: Bob Crist	Respond to of 769667

rulecur, " The USSC, for obvious reasons, stopped democracy in its tracks and departed from over a hundred years of stare decisis and precedent to do so" The final ruling has not been made yet. I could support one that sets and objective standard for counting punched ballot votes and count all punched ballot under-votes in the state, including those in counties where the Democratic canvassing boards have already divined the voters intent.

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:17:54 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 769667

Then you probably didn't read the FSC's opinion. Your allegations about the USSC might have more punch were it not for the scathing dissent by the FSC Chief Justice and the fact that the decision was 4 to 3. I daresay the dissenters are not Republicans and probably voted for Gore themselves. The charge of partisanship doesn't explain their dissent and virtual invitation for the USSC to act.

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:22:34 AM
From: maverick61	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

LOL lawscumMutt - you say "It is completely different. The USSC, for obvious reasons, stopped democracy in its tracks and departed from over a hundred years of stare decisis and precedent to do so. It was the worst decision I have ever seen a court make." No, you just have it reversed loser - it was the USSC who for the good of the country stepped in to keep democracy alive and to stop the Goron's from subverting it. As far as the worst decison I have ever seen a court make - yes, that would be the one made by the Florida Kangaroo court

To: lawdog who wrote (110201)	12/11/2000 10:30:58 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

What makes the Scalia-led opinion so disgusting is the combo of Gore's count in process--citizens counting votes, many of which never got tabulated; and the fact that Scalia's retinue of justices historically always ruled in support of the state high court decisions in state matters. It's clear that Bush has been prepared to accept an illegitimate presidency. Without a majority of votes (and you can't say he has one without all the votes counted), Bush needed: a) the U.S. Supreme Court; b) Congress; or, c) the Florida Legislature. Of the three, Bush prefers the U.S. high court. I've still got an uncanning feeling my earlier prediction will prevail, that the U.S. Supreme Court decision will ultimately come down to a 6-3, in favor of Gore. I think both Kennedy and O'Conner can be persuaded to support state rights non-politically. I'm surprised these two justices got lured into the Scalia/Renquist/Thomas wing of the Court on this decisions. From the beginning, I always knew Renquist, Thomas and Scalia would support Bush unbudgingly. But, on the other hand, maybe by Kennedy and O'Conner siding with Scalia initially, more weight will be given to the ultimate decision should when they shift their support to the Stevens, Beyer, Ginsberg and Souter side of the argument. Conclusively, if Bush stops the vote count he'll NEVER be considered a legitimate president. He'll become an Ugly American President and will be viewed as such far and wide, but more importantly this is how history will consider him. Bad for Bush; bad for the county!