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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LowtherAcademy who wrote (86765)	12/13/2000 12:29:02 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

Lew, >>I guess it should come as no surprise that we have no institutions that are exempt from political selfservishness.<< I believe the part you are missing is that the political parties choose their candidates for the court based on their views on how to interpret the constitution and law. So the fact that the court split 5-4 (7-2) is totally logical without necessarily being political. I'd bet that none of them really believe there was anything political about it. There are just 5 conservative justices. The true test - one that we will never know about - would be if the 5 would have voted for Gore if the roles were reversed. I believe their votes were a no-brainer from the conservatives perspective. Wayne

To: LowtherAcademy who wrote (86765)	12/13/2000 12:51:40 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

lew, i don't blame the us supreme court. they did what they could with what they had to work with. * al gore trying to manipulate a win in an extremely unfair manner. * a fl supreme court that doesn't understand basic fairness or common sense - even when it is slapping it across the face. they believe "count all the votes" means "count only those votes al gore wants to count" (screw the voters!) when called on their piss poor call, they changed the definition to "count all the votes necessary to enable those votes al gore wants counted to be counted" (screw voter AGAIN!) and screw the rest of the state. the constitutional problem with the fl supreme court's actions crossed party lines - both within and outside the fl supreme court. only the remedy was deeply divided. al gore lost b/c he tried to manipulate and cherry pick a win. al gore lost b/c the fl supreme court was incapable of designing a plan that was good for VOTERS instead of AL GORE. so much time was wasted trying to manipulate a win that time ran out. there is no doubt the fl supreme court's "remedies" were patently unfair to the voters of florida. what is a us supreme court gonna do? jmho, and i know reasonable people can, and will, disagree on the meaning of this.