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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (89909)	12/11/2000 4:50:56 PM
From: Ibexx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thread, QCOM's money flow was in positive territory throughout most of the day despite the price drop. It closed near neutrality or slightly positive. Ibexx

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (89909)	12/11/2000 7:36:39 PM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 152472

OT OT re: Election If so, then you have a situation where someone could contest a vote count only for state and local offices, not for President,.... Yes, and it is not a "strange outcome" for this reason - specific federal law relates to the election of a President. The key aspect of which as I understand it is that the election rules (how votes are cast, how they are counted, etc.) must, I repeat must, be set 6 days before the election. They cannot be changed until that election cycle has ended. If they are changed, this is a no-no. No one can change them - not the legislature, not the courts, not even the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact listening to the hearing replay, it was clear that while one or two justices were trying to see if they could come up with a standard for the Florida courts to use, they realized that like everyone else involved they would then run afoul of the prohibition of changing the rules of the election after the 6-day deadline. I listened to the oral arguments and was impressed by Justice Kennedy's probe into whether both the timing of the contest and the standards for counting raised constitutional issues. I think he was trying to find SOME way of ruling against a recount, but that whole idea goes against the right to cast a vote and have it counted. From the commentary afterward, it was emphasized that you cannot tell how a judge will vote from their questions for the following reason. They often ask question they know that there colleagues may want and need the answer to. Especially if they want to help sway that justice to their position. In this case, it was suggested that Kennedy was asking many questions for the purpose of moving Souter. Of course, I don't know and your read may very well be correct. At least I believe the justices presented themselves well, and helped build the legitimacy of whatever their decision is. Best... From my listening to the hearing this morning and the commentary afterward,