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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (24605)	12/13/2000 1:01:19 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

If those four Florida Extremes had any sense of honor, duty, or justice, they would resign and spare their great state of Florida the embarrassment of having to rid itself of Justices who, for the first time in the history of the world, WERE REVERSED, TWICE IN ONE WEEK, FOR VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! Unbelievable. This has to be the ultimate judicial embarrassment.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (24605)	12/13/2000 1:02:54 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

From Rehnquist concurring... IT IS CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Gotta love the last line. "Each Florida precinct before election day provides instructions on how properly to cast a vote, §101.46; each polling place on election day contains a working model of the voting machine it uses, §101.5611; and each voting booth contains a sample ballot, §101.46. In precincts using punch-card ballots, voters are instructed to punch out the ballot cleanly: AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD. Instructions to Voters, quoted in Touchston v. McDermott, 2000 WL 1781942, *6 & n. 19 (CA11) (Tjoflat, J., dissen t-ing). No reasonable person would call it “an error in the vote tabulation,” FLA. STAT. §102.166(5), or a “rejection of legal votes,” FLA. STAT. §102.168(3)(c),4 when electronic or electromechanical equipment performs precisely in the manner designed, and fails to count those ballots that are not marked in the manner that these voting instructions explicitly and prominently specify. The scheme that the Florida Supreme Court’ s opinion attributes to the legisla-ture is one in which machines are required to be “capable of correctly counting votes,” §101.5606(4), but which none-theless regularly produces elections in which legal votes are predictably not tabulated, so that in close elections manual recounts are regularly required. This is of course absurd." Ö¿Ö