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: The Philosopher who wrote (6068)	12/13/2000 11:10:55 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Good morning. Finally got caught up on my sleep, I think I slept for about 12 hours. Sitting in my nightgown drinking coffee - glad I am self-employed. Just finished reading the Supreme Court opinion - opinions. The justices are all over the spectrum with this one. Every opinion expressed on these political boards seem to have found a voice in one or another of the concurring or dissenting opinions. Reading the majority per curiam opinion and the concurring opinion by Rehnquist, joined by Thomas and Scalia, I wondered if maybe out there someone was reading my posts over the past few weeks. I was the only person I know who kept hammering away on the issue of the overcounts being omitted from the recounts, but that found a way into the concurring opinion, and I think it was an important consideration to those three justices. I was the only one I know who was so outraged at the lack of deference to the Florida Secretary of State's legislatively-mandated decision-making that I fired off angry letters to every ear I could think of, including emails to Theodore Olsen, and that was an important consideration in the concurring opinion, too. I don't suppose they are actually monitoring the boards, I just have opinions about statutory construction which were formed by reading Scalia and Rehnquist, and others of the same school, so it's not surprising that I would reach the same conclusions that they did. I think the conclusion of Justice Stevens' dissent is unfortunate - he wrote: "What must underlie petitioner's entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state court judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges througout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the would to that confidence that is inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law." For some reason, Stevens thought that the manual recount was going to be done by judges in each county. This is not true. As we saw on TV, it was the county canvassing boards which were doing the manual recount. The only place I am aware of that had judges doing the recount was in Leon County, where the circuit court judges were looking at the Miami-Dade undercount. So his dudgeon is based on a reliance on the wrong facts. I think it was intemperate of him to say what he said. But like so many people, he was angry. But he did not seem to be angry about the lack of deference to the executive branch of the Florida government nor the lack of deference to the legislative branch of the Florida government. I haven't seen so many pissed-off Democrats since Brown v. Board of Education.