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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Loki who wrote (87893)	12/14/2000 10:03:30 AM
From: Windseye	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 97611

Loki, I've read over the SC decision... I am not at all impressed with their reasoning, nor their nimble discussion regarding counting of votes and the irregularities in many of the precincts in FLA... they totally ignored the precedent of such variability in "counting" that has existed in the last 200 years. Even if they have an opportunity to rule on this issue AND they insist on NEW standards then THEY in fact have made law, not interpreted. And one of these arrogant justices had the audacity to say in advance that he wanted to retire when Bush is president and someone has the lame idea that no political ends of the justices would be served! Give me a break... what kind of selective listening is going on around here, anyway? To be truly effective in this instance I believe that the SC should have stipulated the criteria for counting, ordered a manual recount of all discarded ballots using the "uniform" criteria, & postpone inauguration if necessary. Time limits are also arbitrary and determining as precisely as possible the "will of the people" is clearly more important than maintaining a time schedule. To sacrifice determining the "real" will of the people is denying THESE (undercounted/thrown out) PEOPLE equal protection under the constitution, and why is it that no one seems to think this is important? Arguments concerning the success or failure of steps taken in this process are irrelevant with regard to the real issue... determining "will of the people" in a manner that maximizes "equal protection under the law"... I'll accept this criteria no question, but I sincerely question the arbitrary, capricious and selective application of the criteria. Doug