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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (129552)	12/12/2000 12:08:59 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1570413

Scumbria, Meanwhile, Clinton attempts to secure his legacy: worldbillfishseries.com In a sweeping executive order made today, President Clinton banned recreational fishing from approximately 4 million acres off the northwest Hawaiian Islands and restricted the activity in another 80 million acres. There are over a quarter million recreational anglers in Hawaii whose activity contributes an astounding $238 billion to the local Hawaiian economy. These benefits could be impacted by this order.

To: Scumbria who wrote (129552)	12/12/2000 1:39:22 PM
From: Don Dunlap	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570413

I agree, lets have a recount. Here is how we will do it. We will hand recount all of Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Each recount will be perfomed by a panel containing all Republicans with the exception of a lone Democrat. If there is any disupte on any ballot, a Republican with controlling authority will determine how the ballot was cast. There will be no standard to judge the ballot other than the intent of the voter. Republicans will also recount 20% of Dade's most heavily Republican counties and include this total in any amended recount. Any democrat should be able to see the absurdity of Gore's position by reading the above paragraph. In the only objective vote counts we have had to date, Bush won twice.

To: Scumbria who wrote (129552)	12/12/2000 5:25:23 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 1570413

S- Are Supreme Court Justices allowed to act as advocates for one side? Certainly. That's why there's more than one , and an odd number of them. The questioning always is used to bring out points the justices think will favor their personal positions. hpol.org -- "The court packing bill Fireside Chat" -- Breyer, Souter, and Stevens were in there pumping for some kind of ballot examining standard. Do you figure they were doing it as a 'kind of intellectual exercise' not having anything to do with actually counting ballots in Florida? It's gonna be a cold day in hell before Ginsburg asks some petitioner how long it's been since someone with an executed death penalty has commited their favorite crime again. It's the way it works. tgptndr

To: Scumbria who wrote (129552)	12/13/2000 10:51:54 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570413

Scumbria, you are replying to a message by Steve Harris, with a quote that is from his message but apparently you think you are replying to me because you start your post with "Tim" As for the content of your message - Every day a new excuse for avoiding a full accounting of votes. "The deadline passed" This is an important point in my opinion. The constitution places the power to determine these thing solely in the state legislatures. In FLA the legislature passed a law giving a deadline. That deadline might not have been well chose but the remedy would be to pass a new law for next election. After that the FLA SC set its own deadline. This act was arguably unconstitutional but even if it is accepted the FLA courts deadline also passed. "If they can't vote right, their votes shouldn't count" Another important point. If you fail to vote the way you intended to vote, then you didn't vote. The voting system should be set up in such a way as to minimize this posibility and you can argue that is was not, but that would just mean that the voting system should be changed. Gettting rid of punch cards would be a start. Other changes might be possible as well. "It is unfair to only count in a few counties" This point in my opinion also has some validity. If you recount in some places but not others you can distort the result. If the recount might subjectivly try to determine the intent of the voter rather then the chance for distortion is increased. "It would be best for the country to let Bush win" I believe this is true but it is not a particuarly relevant point to the case in question. However if you are replying to me it is a straw man argument. I never actually used any statement like this to justify no recounts. There isn't enough time" This arguement might be true now. It was not earlier in the process, but its a bit late now without clear evidence of fraud. "The stock market will tank" True this is a bogus argument (whether it is true or not it is not relevant). But I never made this arguement. The Presidency and Supreme Court are at serious risk without a recount. We need it, more than you can possibly imagine right now. That is an overstatement. Both have been involved in questionable controversial decisions before and both have come out ok. If the recounts are allowed (which apparently is not going to happen)it will also be questionable and controversial unless Bush wins (because in that case he would have won however you counted the votes). As a matter of fact - I believe that the actual vote is probably to close to call with complete accuracy. Even if people look at the ballots later and do a complete recount who wins might depend on who counts the votes and how they count them. As a matter of law - I think Bush won, based on the standards set by the federal constitution and FLA law. Are Supreme Court Justices allowed to act as advocates for one side? Are they allowed to try cases where they have a clear conflict of interest? I agree with the comment that Scalia made. It might be unusally that he said it (arguing the case should be done by Olson not by Scalia), however 1 - I have seen this before both from liberal and conservative judges; and 2 - Scalia started with "It's part of your submission, I think,", so he wa apparently just repeating/confirming a point that Olson had all ready made rather then arguing for Olson's/Bush's side. As far as the conflict of interest - Eugene Scalia had nothing to do with the case nor is he directly connected with Bush's campaign. At worst it is a boderline case of conflict of interest. Tim