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.

Pastimes : PROPAGANDA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (89)	12/11/2000 10:00:45 PM
From: Vendit™	Respond to of 318

The real deal, the transcripts from today's hearing: foxnews.com U.S. Supreme Court Hearing Monday, December 11, 2000 Transcript of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court, Monday, Dec. 11, 2000: Chief Justice William Rehnquist: We'll hear arguments now in number 00949, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney v. Albert Gore, et al. Before we begin the arguments, the court wishes to commend all of the parties to this case on their exemplary briefing under very trying circumstances. We greatly appreciate it. Mr. Olson? Bush lawyer Ted Olson: Mr. Chief Justice, thank you. And may it please the court. Just one week ago, this court vacated the Florida Supreme Court's November 21 revision of Florida's election code, which had changed statutory deadlines, severely limited the discretion of the state's chief election officer, changed the meaning of words such as "shall" and "may" into "shall not" and "may not," and authorized extensive, standardless and unequal manual ballot recounts in selected Florida counties. Just four days later, without a single reference to this court's December 4 ruling, the Florida Supreme Court issued a new, wholesale, post-election revision of Florida's election law. That decision not only changed Florida election law yet again, it also explicitly referred to, relied upon and expanded its November 21 judgment that this court had made into a nullity. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: Can you begin by telling us our federal jurisdiction? Where's the federal question here? Olson: The federal question arises out of the fact that the Florida Supreme Court was violating Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, and it was conducting itself in violation of Section 5 of Title 3 of federal law. Kennedy: On the first, it seems to me essential to the Republican theory of government that the constitutions of the United States and the states are the basic charter. And to say that the legislature of the state is unmoored from its own constitution and it can't use its courts and it cant use its executive agency — even you, your side, concedes it can use a state agency — it seems to me a holding which has grave implications for our republican theory of government. Olson: Justice Kennedy, the Constitution specifically vested the authority to determine the manner of the appointment of electors in state legislatures. Legislatures of course can use the executive branch in the states, and it may use, in its discretion, the judicial branch of the state. Kennedy: Then why didn't it do that here? Olson: Well, there is a breakout with respect to various aspects of Florida statute and Florida election law. There's a specific grant of authority to the circuit courts. There's no reference to an appellate jurisdiction. It may not be the most powerful argument we bring to the Supreme Court. Kennedy: I think that's right. (LAUGHTER) KLP I am getting a new SI message from my lengthy link so I cut it down to about 10% of its original content. >>>>the error message fwiw: ((((Internal error. Please try again. java.sql.SQLException: Data size bigger than max size for this type: 88194))))