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: Qone0 who wrote (112082)	12/12/2000 12:42:41 PM
From: brutusdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The 14th and 5th Amendment arguments were widely recognized as some extremely weak arguments by legal scholars and top attorneys. The only reason the SC could use those as the basis for their decision would be to get themselves out of mess they created. You don't actually think those were compelling arguments do you?

To: Qone0 who wrote (112082)	12/12/2000 12:44:12 PM
From: donjuan_demarco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"The federal in question is "equal protection." since this is a federal election." So you are arguing that, by ordering the counting of votes that had been rejected by machines, and never counted, the FSC was denying somebody of equal protection under the law. That is a novel theory. It is clear that if a state REFUSED to count certain votes, it would constitute a violation of the fourteenth amendment. But, under your theory, the decision to count ALL of the votes is now a violation. Could you explain who, specifically, would be denied equal protection under the law if the undervotes are counted?