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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: globestocks who wrote (6010)	12/12/2000 7:48:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6710

I can't believe the Supreme Court is even considering defining what that means. Heavens, I seriously doubt that's what they're doing. IMO all they will say, if anything, on that is that it's an unconstitutionally unclear standard and you go back and come up with a better standard which we'll then look at if anybody brings it before us in future, but in the meantime you can't do a hand recount on a constitutionally unclear standard.

To: globestocks who wrote (6010)	12/12/2000 7:53:55 PM
From: tekmon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I think the last thing they want to do is consider voter intent, even if they are forced to. What they have to consider was whether or not Federal law or the constitution was violated, Fla. has laws concerning the establishment of electors and as long as these do not violate the constitution then everything is cool. What Bush is appealing is how the Fla. Supreme Court went about ordering a manual recount after a certification. The Fla. Supreme Court failed to show that the reason for the order for manual recounts fell within Fla. law and US law that is why the US SC stepped in.