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: SecularBull who wrote (114926)	12/13/2000 5:37:37 PM
From: hdl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

why were dissenters on ussc so partisan? should they decide case properly? should they seek unanimity or near unanimity? should they be swayed by the media? should they avoid a split decision? should stevens have avoided heated rhetoric? is rep of ussc hurt by 5-4 division? if so, why didn't dissenters go along with majority, rather than attack it, especially when they were reluctant to attack the sup ct of fla, despite its baseless decisions? why does media attack ussc, before and after decision, and attack attackers of fl sup ct as horrible to question a ct? why does media attack gop as partisan for pointing out clintons' lies, etc. and not attack dems as partisan for supporting the indefensible clintons?

To: SecularBull who wrote (114926)	12/13/2000 5:38:22 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 769668

The real consensus was to go home, but they couldn't bail out without doing something, so better to appear stupid than to remove all doubt. They will regret the stay for the rest of their tenure. I hope there is a lawsuit quickly which says that if my county doesn't have the instant check (where you find out if you ballot is okay before leaving the poll) then it is a violation of my equal protection if anyone gets that machinery. We can have all counties back to pencil and paper quickly. TP