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: H-Man who wrote (114763)	12/13/2000 5:15:02 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

ONLY disagreement?? Read the opinions a little closer. Four dissents, and the four dissenters did not concur in the equal protection opinion of the majority (not one of them), though 2 of them acknowledged independently their own concerns about the inconsistent standards in Palm anbd Broward (a legitimate concern, BTW). Breyer and Souter, the two justices who expressed the equal protection concerns, BOTH thought that the US Supreme Court should NOT have taken the appeal or reversed the FSC on its core ruling (and thought it was better left to Congress to sort out the E.P. concerns). That is NOT dissenting only on the remedy. Truthfully, the decision was even more split than a 5-4 result would indicate. The dissenters all joined with one another on the core components of the dissent. The Rehnquist concurrence enjoyed no such respect from O'Connor and Kennedy. That's the facts -- you might try reading the opinions before you try to analyze what they say.