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 (110210)	12/11/2000 10:16:29 AM
From: lawdog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Here is what the world thinks of our Supremes: A partisan judgement that casts a dark shadow over the Supreme Court 11 December 2000 The United States Supreme Court has undermined its own authority and the credibility of American democracy in one of its worst decisions since the Dred Scott case in 1857, which helped precipitate the Civil War. Its reasons for calling a halt to the checking of disputed ballots in Florida, as presented by Justice Scalia on behalf of the majority of the court, were miserably unconvincing. The checking of questionable votes threatened "irreparable harm" to the nation, Justice Scalia ruled, by "casting a cloud" upon the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election. His law is no better than his use of metaphor. The ballot-checking would only cast doubt on Mr Bush's election if enough of the ballots rejected by machines were adjudged to be votes for Al Gore. What Justice Scalia meant is that the disputed ballots should not be counted in any circumstances, in which case he and his four colleagues could have ruled on the substantive issue on Saturday. They could have argued that counting by machine, in a uniform fashion across all Florida counties, was the only lawful method of counting. That would have been wrong, but it would have been consistent. To stop the ballot-checking, however, is effectively to make the decision while pretending not to. The Supreme Court's effective decision, which is likely to be confirmed today or tomorrow, flies in the face of Florida law, which says that votes should count "if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter", and in the face of legal precedent across America in which manual counting has been preferred to machine counting in cases of dispute. The Supreme Court majority had better come up with a better quality of argument this week, because – curiously enough – it is not so much who wins the presidency that matters as how the presidency is won. If, on Friday, the Florida Supreme Court had divided four-to-three the other way, and ruled to exclude the disputed ballots, that decision would have been respected. Mr Gore's supporters might have felt pained that their man had secured the most votes but lost, and dispassionate observers might have continued to comment on the vagaries of the US electoral system. But all systems throw up perverse results and the process by which the outcome had been decided would have seemed fair. However, the US Supreme Court's decision does not feel right. Of course there is a federal interest in the election of a president, but the test for interfering in the affairs of the State of Florida – given that the constitution gives States the right to decide how the vote should be conducted – ought to be set high. The Republicans have fought a spirited campaign of law suits, spin and even low-grade intimidation to prevent the ballots rejected by machines being checked by hand. They have failed to make a case for this obstruction, and now the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have failed to make that case either. Is this a constitutional crisis? It is now, although it will not be after the Supreme Court rules definitively that Mr Bush should be the next President. Its ruling will be accepted, but grudgingly. The Court has damaged itself, and ensured the outcome that Justice Scalia sought to avoid, in that half of America's voters will "cast a cloud" on the legitimacy of their President. A weak President can only be bad for America and bad for the rest of the world. We shall all pay the price for this poorly-argued, partisan judgment, which casts a cloud over the court which holds the most important country in the world together. independent.co.uk

To: jlallen who wrote (110210)	12/11/2000 10:19:44 AM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

jl: It was interesting on Hardball last night...someone said that when you add up the opinions on either side of BOTH the flsc and the ussc, it still is evenly split right down the middle 8 to 8..despite the flsc being perceived as liberal and the ussc perhaps more constructionist..interesting doc