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: donjuan_demarco who wrote (112434)	12/12/2000 3:19:32 PM
From: whyretire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I called my broker and told him I intended to buy Dell when it was 3, and I now I want my profit. He said the instructions for trading stocks are clearly defined by the SEC and I didn't follow the instructions. So I said I asked for help understanding how to buy Dell at 3 and nobody helped me. I'm suing my broker for $5 million.

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (112434)	12/12/2000 3:20:04 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

That provision applies to damaged ballots only. Your interpretation will soon be trumped by the USSC.

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (112434)	12/12/2000 3:34:26 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Bush has had a four-pronged strategy once he realized he didn't win Florida outright, like his governor-brother Jeb had promised he would. The first tactic was to himself ask for a recount, which he did in Palm Beach County. This made Gore's recount the fourth recount and graced GOPwinger pundits to hit the airwaves complaining about so many recounts. All Gore did was ask for one, which he still has yet to receive. Second, he controlled the secretary of state's office and thus could expedite the certification process, rather than having the secretary of state's office bipartisan in an intention to divine the will of Florida's voters. Thirdly, he used thug-like demonstrations to disrupt the local canvassing boards, together with GOP challenges in the recount process to ballots which were clearly discernable. All of this was geared to slow and delay the process. Fourthly, he went to both the state and federal courts to try and halt the hand recounts, even going so far as to use a federal court to block a states' right issue. In effect, he did everything possible to produce a result such that no vote ever showed he didn't hold the lead. With Harris at the top in his pocket, this was easy to do. Not every candidate has a secretary of state so in the bag as Bush had with Harris. Finally, you're right. All the Florida Supreme Court did was interpret a conflict in the Florida statutues. One statute gave Gore the right to request a hand recount in specified counties only; another statute was vague relative to the time allowed for that hand recount to happen. Harris, given that she couldn't certify the election till the absentee ballots were all in, was very wrong to disrupt the hand recount process while she was still receiving valid ballots. I n effect, the Florida court did not write new law, rather it enabled a way for Gore's rightful request for a recount to happen. If the Florida legislature passes a law for which compliance is an impossible test to meet, it is up to the courts to sort out the conflict. And that's exactly what Florida's court did.

To: donjuan_demarco who wrote (112434)	12/12/2000 4:24:18 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 769670

how can someone possibly argue that the FSC was changing the law when all it did was order the counties to comply with this statute? You're mixing apples and oranges. At issue as to whether the Florida Court legislated or interpreted is with respect to how its rulings differed from State statutes first with respect to deadlines for certification, then with respect to manual recounts where discretion is left to the local canvassing boards with no standard. A separate and discernible issue here is that of equal protection. And based upon equal protection one could very well argue to a certain extent that 100 years of Florida case law as well as Florida election statutes are unconstitutional as applied to statewide or national presidential elections whereby ballots of similarly situated voters in different counties have their ballots treated differently.