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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:26:30 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Then why did they vote in the MAJORITY?!?!?! That is the dumbest thing I have read today... LoF

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:29:43 AM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769670

From CNN: "The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday voted 7-2 to overturn a Florida Supreme Court ruling that allowed recounts of disputed votes in the state." Gotta hurt! LoF

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:30:59 AM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 769670

Get real. It is common for there not to be addtional concurring opinions. It means that either one of them wrote it or they have no dis agreements with it.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:31:59 AM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769670

Rehnquist: "In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns ... Of course, in ordinary cases, the distribution of powers among the branches of a State's government raises no questions of federal constitutional law, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character.... But there are a few exceptional cases in which the Constitution imposes a duty or confers a power on a particular branch of a State s government. This is one of them."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:36:28 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

From Dissent: "Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns. Those concerns are alleviated, if not eliminated, by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process." Does this mean that the Florida Supreme Court had directed a recount of Broward County using the same standards to be determined by Judge Terry Lewis? I do not remember seeing that ordered, anywhere... LoF

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 11:46:12 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You are correct, sir. And remember, the high court winped out in that it remanded the case back to Florida rather than outright rule in Bush's favor. It'll be hard, however, to hide this in history from legal scholars. The Rehnquist Court will now forever be stained, as will the Bush presidency. In fact, Bush could, as president, do everything perfectly and still not escape the harsh judgment of history. Bush did not honor his opponent's request for a recount when 327 votes separated the two candidates out of six million votes cast. Instead, he went to the federal courts, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to block his opponents request for a recount. No matter what Gore says to the nation tonight, deep down he knows he shouldn't be conceding. But he likely will for the good of the nation. Were I Gore, I'd concede nothing to Bush 'cause Bush didn't win this election--he used deep-seated political connections to 'take' this election. Frankly, I don't think the good of the nation comes from false unity.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (114238)	12/13/2000 12:08:24 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 769670

Wrong again, Ken. Their finger prints are all over the per curiam decision. You did go to law school, didn't you? You should have a clue how per curiam opinions may be interpreted. Without O'Connor and Kennedy, there would have been NO per curiam opinion. Alternatively, it would have been a 5-4 majority opinion crafted by Rehnquist with Scalia's and Thomas's concurrence, and a much more substantial dissenting opinion signed on by Kennedy and O'Connor. To state that these two justices are "embarrassed" to sign onto an opinion is ludicrous. In short, Ken, you just don't seem to have a good grasp of how to read a court opinion and interpret the law.