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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (357)	12/13/2000 8:37:03 AM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

Hi Carl - probably this is the end of the road. However, I can see none of the 9 USSC justices will go fishing anytime soon :). I think the next SC appointment [by the likely Bush Administration] will be serious showdown! best, Bosco

To: Carl R. who wrote (357)	12/13/2000 6:55:27 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

Carl, how can we bring in the argument of "equal protection" when the voting machinery in place does not provide such protection? Not only is the performance of the various punching machines different, but there are select "lucky" Floridians that use optical scanners. The statistic is quite clear, optical scanners, only .3% registering no vote for the top of the ticket, punching machines, 1.5%. That is unequal protection and the whole Florida Vote should be thrown out according to the US-SC. By the way, issuing post facto standards would be "changing the rules after the election", and writing "new law" (like the Texan Law in place) the only standard available from the legislature was "determining the voter's intent" by standards at each canvassing board. Anything state wide would require a new action by the legislature which the FSC rightfully could not do. without having the Bush camp clamoring, new law was written. Zeev Zeev