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.

Pastimes : What Can We Do To Bring The Country Back Together? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (48)	12/14/2000 9:59:58 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 181

The New York Times has published several articles extremely critical of Gore's legal team and tactics, basically blaming Gore's legal strategies for his defeat: >>The Legal Issues: Concession on 'Deadline' Helped Seal Gore's Defeat By WILLIAM GLABERSON ack on Nov. 20, during what would be the first of a series of historic oral arguments, the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court turned to David Boies, the chief lawyer for Vice President Al Gore, and asked a question. In that exchange, Mr. Boies made a pivotal concession that, in retrospect, helped bring the vice president's defeat in the legal war for White House. The chief justice, Charles T. Wells, mentioned the date Dec. 12. He wondered whether battles over the Florida vote "have to be finally determined by that date," and asked, "Do you agree with that?" Mr. Boies looked up. "I do your honor," he said. That concession began a chain of legal events that ended with the conclusion by a majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday — Dec. 12 — that time had simply run out. Florida recounts could not go on after that date, the justices said, even if they could be conducted constitutionally. Yesterday, legal experts of differing political persuasions said the skirmish over what came to be called "the deadline" proved decisive. But some of them said that under federal law, at least, it was not a deadline, but merely advice by Congress to states about how to assure that their voters' choice for president would be honored. "It is a promise by Congress that if you do three things a state's electors will be conclusive in Congress" should some other slate claim to be the real one, said John C. Yoo, a conservative constitutional law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. To win what has been called the Dec. 12 "safe harbor," states must name electors; must do so under rules enacted before Election Day, and must resolve any contests over who the electors are by six days before the meeting of the Electoral College, which is to meet on Dec. 18. The United States Supreme Court's majority opinion on Tuesday did not say Dec. 12 was a federal deadline. Instead, the majority said that was what Florida law provided. There is no provision of Florida law specifying a Dec. 12 deadline. But the majority of the justices in Washington said the Florida Supreme Court had held that the State Legislature meant to gain the "safe harbor" protection for Florida's electors. The four justices in the minority suggested that Florida law provided no such thing. And yesterday, legal experts said that central conclusion of the majority was a debatable legal point. "The problem with that is it is not clear that's what the Florida Supreme Court would say the law of Florida is," said Philip P. Frickey, a constitutional law expert at the University of California at Berkeley. For the Florida Supreme Court to reach that conclusion in the presidential battle, Professor Frickey said, it would have to decide that Florida law said it was more important to obtain the "safe harbor" protection than it was to complete a recount to see which candidate had won. But some experts said it was reasonable for the justices to conclude the Florida Supreme Court had decided the Legislature meant to get all election contests completed in time to assure that Florida's electoral votes would be counted. "The way they read the Florida Supreme Court decisions is not inevitable, but it is quite justifiable," said Daniel H. Lowenstein, an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles. The evidence for that view of Florida law can be traced back to Mr. Boies's concession about the "deadline" back on Nov. 20.<< nytimes.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (48)	12/14/2000 10:11:43 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 181

I'm trying to find yesterday's article on the NYTimes website, but I don't seem to be able access it. I've got the print version here in front of me, it's quite lengthy. Basically, what it says is that Gore's decision not to ask for a state wide recount was a blunder. Another blunder was to ask for an extension of time for the protest phase, which shortened the time for the contest phase. Another blunder was playing hardball and going for the favorable votes instead of asking that all votes be counted regardless of the political consequences. Since, as we all know, the New York Times is a bastion of liberalism, printing that criticism even before Gore had conceded was an acknowledgement that it was over, and they were, and are, blaming Gore and his legal team. I think that is somehow, slightly, helpful to Bush. They aren't blaming Bush and Bush's lawyers. In fact, the Wednesday article was somewhat favorable to Bush's lawyers. They have an interview with Ben Ginsberg, one of Bush's chief strategists, saying that the Gore legal team was being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical about their goal, which was to find enough Democrat votes to win. He said that hurt them in court. The article also says that courts at all three levels found a constitutional flaw in failing to have a statewide recount - not only Judge Sauls and the United State Supreme Court, which ruled against Gore, but also the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of him. In fairness to Gore, they probably never thought it through, but that was the fatal blunder. At least they aren't blaming Bush. So that's a good sign.