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: Ellen who wrote (110789)	12/11/2000 3:13:15 PM
From: Dave Gore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Ellen/All: You have got to read this. Extremely logical unlike so many posts here which are purely emotional To: Dave Gore who wrote (118709) From: Lane Hall-Witt Monday, Dec 11, 2000 2:54 PM ET Reply # of 118721 Dave: At this point, having heard the arguments, I continue to believe that we'll have recounts of some fashion. If the U.S. Supreme Court was going to give Bush a flat-out win, I think it would have spent much more time on the question of jurisdiction than on the question of a uniform standard for counting. The Supreme Court would create a huge mess if it ruled for Bush on the basis that the lack of a uniform standard for manual counting violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In his Saturday comment, Scalia wrote: "Another issue in the case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent -- dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. -- vary from county to county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the Circuit Court, permits." If the issue is propriety, then the U.S. Supreme Court really has no business involving itself in this matter. If the issue is constitutionality (violation of Equal Protection), then we open a huge can of worms because the problem of the standard determination of voters' intent goes far beyond dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc. On Scalia's formulation, the mere fact that different counties use different voting machines would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause -- that is to say, it would be unconstitutional. The Florida election result would be challenged and would be found unconstitutional. Indeed, we'd soon find that the elections held in each and every state were unconstitutional! Would the Supreme Court really want to start down this road? I can't imagine it would.