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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8801)	12/12/2000 10:51:50 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 10042

Instead of selecting the next President, The USSP seems to have told FSP ( and Florida)its still their problem to select one ( and accept the responsibility for doing so) despite the fact they messed things up so bad and wasted so much time it is nearly impossible to correct the selection process. Suggest stopping any checks payable to the 2001 campaign. Its over. Nas futures up 5000, thats nice. Sig

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8801)	12/13/2000 12:16:44 AM
From: trader7e7	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Is it a standard that if there is a dent then it is the indication of the voter's choice? John

To: Math Junkie who wrote (8801)	12/13/2000 12:06:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

From early reports of the ruling, it sounds like the lack of a uniform hand-counting standard was a big part of the problem in their minds. Now that I've read the whole decision, I still don't get it. I was hoping the decision would describe the point at which lack of uniformity in the counting of ballots crossed some bright line from ordinary variation into unequal protection. The decision is written as though that were intuitively obvious. Well, it's not intuitively obvious to me (and apparently to some of the justices) so reading the decision was singularly unhelpful. I'm predisposed to allow delegated officials room to operate within their prescribed authority. I accorded that to Kathleen Harris. I accorded that to the FLSC. I thought that the majority on the court was also inclined to show deference to state supreme courts, particularly in matters of state law, but they seemed to find something here so egregious as to require a hearty dose of judicial activism. I sure wish they had spoken clearly on where they drew that bright line so that I could give them the benefit of the doubt. At the moment I am unable to come up with any charitable interpretation of their action. Karen