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 (110342)	12/11/2000 11:04:59 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I guess you didn’t read the Miami Herald. They ran different counts and probabilities on the undervote. Even with the most favorable assumption for Bush, HE LOSES FLORIDA. That's a guess LD and you know it. As for Bush and Baker, they are arguably on par at very least with Gore and Daley (and I believe of much better caliber). JLA

To: lawdog who wrote (110342)	12/11/2000 1:29:23 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 769667

Great editorial from the Miami Herlad: TRUST THE PROCESS BUT THIS 4-3 DECISION BEGS REVIEW Florida Supreme Court's ruling unwisely sweeps aside canvassing board decisions. The Florida Supreme Court's ruling yesterday -- in a revealing 4-3 split -- wrecked fundamental parts of the state's elections process in pursuit of a goal that, however idealistic, could plunge the nation into legal chaos. The majority's decision was a ringing victory for Vice President Al Gore. It was also a blunt rebuke of Leon County Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who on Monday ruled that Mr. Gore's lawyers failed utterly to show that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties abused their discretion in refusing to examine ballots that hadn't registered a clear vote for president during machine tallies. The majority said Judge Sauls was duty bound ``to determine whether `legal votes' were rejected sufficient to change or place in doubt the results of the election.'' And to avoid any charge of showing undue favoritism to Palm Beach and Miami-Dade voters, the high court also ordered yesterday that these ``undercounted'' ballots be manually inspected in all of the other counties where such hand counts hadn't already been done. Although this has the appearance of fairness, it runs roughshod over many enduring principles and effectively legislates a new election scheme. It also has the stunning effect of sweeping aside the collective judgments of 67 canvassing boards without any showing that they had erred in certifying earlier counts. Though we have endorsed Mr. Gore, we side more with a view of the law that says that you run the election with rules in place on Election Day, not those invented by judges three weeks or a month later. Writing in dissent, Chief Justice Charles Wells, for the Minority, had it right in saying that the courts shouldn't meddle in the elections process except under the most extreme circumstances, such as when fraud in the ballot count is evident. ``The Legislature has given to the county canvassing boards -- and only these boards -- the authority to ascertain the intent of the voter,'' Justice Wells wrote. But even beyond the legal issues, the majority's call for a statewide recount of these ballots creates, in his words, ``an overflowing basket of practical problems.'' Consider one: Although the majority ordered Judge Sauls to find a way to count the contested ballots, it left shockingly vague the standard that the counters should use in determining the voter's intent. Also, if the manual counts are not done by Tuesday -- and if they are, despite the outcome -- the Legislature will step in and name George W. Bush the winner. Legal chaos will ensue, inviting entry by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a time when common sense must be weighed against Mr. Gore's hopes. Justice Wells cited a long-standing legal doctrine rooted in a 1936 opinion that is appropriate here: ``This court is committed to the doctrine that extraordinary relief will not be granted in a case where it plainly appears that, although the complaining party may be ordinarily entitled to it, the granting of such relief . . . will result in confusion and disorder and will produce an injury to the public that outweighs the individual right of the complainant to have the relief he seeks.'' herald.com