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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valley Girl who wrote (5768)	12/11/2000 11:24:25 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 6710

NBC's Pete Williams was on the radio this morning talking about it. I don't have a cite. Anyway, we shall see soon enough.

To: Valley Girl who wrote (5768)	12/11/2000 12:03:04 PM
From: margie	Respond to of 6710

How can they consider O'Connor to be the swing vote. They could not have listened to the oral arguments last week. It was so obvious that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor believed the Florida Supremes violated Article II and Title 3,section 5; I don't know how any of these pundits think O'Connor could possibly support Gore or the FSC. More liberal media spin. The justices were quite negative to Tribe and Olson at the last oral hearing. I imagine Boise, who knows little or nothing about constitutional law would irritate them even more. Like Scalia's quote in the Washington Post today; the FSC really has to have screwed up badly to be back before the USSC. They violated the US constitution. I think they should not even consider the question of standards. That is not for the USSC to decide. I think the decision will be 9-0 or 7-2 against the Florida Supreme Court, and reverse both rulings; with maybe Breyer and/or Ginsburg dissenting. would be the swing vote for Gore. Just the opposite. They must not have read the oral arguments. She was as strong as Scalia and Rehnquist in her apparent support of Bush's position. O'CONNOR: "Well, I guess in the area, though, of presidential electors, it could be that that (FSC) court, would have to be informed by the provisions of Section 5 in reviewing the laws enacted by the legislature of the state. I mean, it had to register somehow with the Florida courts that that statute was there and that it might be in the state's best interest not to go around changing the law after the election. O'CONNOR: ... because of Article II, which, after all, does give the legislature plenary power and must have wanted -- it must have wanted to have the laws in place so that it wasn't -- so that Florida wouldn't risk losing its electoral votes. I mean, the legislature had to want that... by enacting laws. And perhaps the Florida court has to be aware of the consequences to the state of changing the rules. O'CONNOR: Well, it certainly did by enacting that date. "Here is the certification date." How could it have been clearer? (She was actually banging the paper on her desk as she said this.....a swing vote for Gore...dream on) Attorney HANCOCK: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. In accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution, the Florida legislature has directed the manner of selecting presidential electors in Florida. That manner is pursuant to a popular vote that's implemented pursuant to the general election laws of the state of Florida. O'CONNOR: I guess, Article II permits the legislature, in general, to make the choice it could itself select the electors. HANCOCK: Yes, Justice O'Connor, we agree with that. Attorney for Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth O'CONNOR: Yes, but who would have thought that the legislature was leaving open the date, or changed by the court? Who would've thought that? "When state laws violate fundamental constitutional rights (e.g. race or gender discrimination) liberals are the first to run to the federal courts, asking them to supercede the state. Likewise, when the Florida Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution (see Article II, Section I) and federal law (see Title 3, Section 5), changing the rules of an election after the election, defying the powers given only to the legislature, manipulating a national election," liberals should be concerned but are not. From todays WSJ.."Drags the US Supreme Court into the Mud"