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 (110485)	12/11/2000 12:16:41 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (110485)	12/11/2000 12:16:41 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (110485)	12/11/2000 12:16:42 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (110485)	12/11/2000 12:16:46 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (110485)	12/11/2000 12:18:29 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF

To: lawdog who wrote (110485)	12/11/2000 12:18:30 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

For the FLSC to say that their decision is rooted in the Florida statutes that existed on the day of the election, and then to selectively rewrite some of those statutes is a fatal inconsistency in their opinions. The manual recount statute that provides for no clear standard (and it does not, honestly) may also have been Constitutionally invalid on the day it was passed, under equal protection concerns. It just has not been adjudicated before now. LoF