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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (122579)	12/13/2000 12:52:06 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

John, No. It means the state retains it's sovereignty, to make and interpret by it's own courts, laws, without federal intervention. Controling elections at the state level is (sorry, was) probably the most important of these rights. I think you have a good point. My opinion before and during the 1st case was that the biggest risk to Bush was that the US SC does not take the case, or that they refuse to rule. But on the merits of the case, Bush side had an excellent case, both from the perspective of law, and from a basic principle of fairness, so once the USSC took the case, the outcome was not that tough to predict. Joe

To: Road Walker who wrote (122579)	12/14/2000 6:38:56 AM
From: boris_a	Respond to of 186894

OT OT John, I think most of the people have no idea what this USSC ruling means. From: jurist.law.pitt.edu "Q: Does the Court's finding of an equal protection violation mean that a state can no longer have county-by-county differences in the selection of voting mechanisms or systems(with different error rates)? Can one county continue to use punchcard ballots while another uses an optical scanner? A: The Court did not go so far as to hold those sorts of differences to be unconstitutional. The opinion states: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. We can expect, however, that in future elections new cases will be filed to test the limits of the no-unequal-evaluation-of-ballots principle. There also likely will be many future challenges to any election recount where a party can argue that a standard is too vague, or that not all of the ballots are being recounted, or that counters lacked training in handling or interpreting ballots." Now there's stuff for US lawyers. And I believe these (yet to be defined) standards must now hold across (!) state borders. And same time down to every little election!. (Don't know how many of those you got in the US, I'm from Europe). If equal protection is disputed, you can go to the USSC. It's a matter of constitutional rights now. I'm pretty sure about that. Very interesting. Lots of work (an fact finding) for the USSC to come. Regards, Boris.