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: mst2000 who wrote (114892)	12/13/2000 5:28:55 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The Reversal was appropriate, but the question was whether or not to Remand for the purposes of constructing a Remedy: "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are consti-tutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dis-senting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy." LoF

To: mst2000 who wrote (114892)	12/13/2000 8:15:26 PM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 769667

I read them and understand them. Apparently it is you who cannot read.

To: mst2000 who wrote (114892)	12/13/2000 8:45:11 PM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 769667

I also note from Souter dissent: after noting the validity of the equal protection issue and noting the arbitrary nature of the count, I would therefore remand the case to the courts of Florida with instructions to establish uniform standards for evaluating the several types of ballots that have prompted differing treatments, to be applied within and among counties when passing on such identical ballots in any further recounting (or successive recounting) that the courts might order. the only reason to remand would be because of a constitutional violation that the judge saw. seems pretty plain, you sure you read it ?