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: Windseye who wrote (87895)	12/14/2000 10:32:06 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Can you outline the "precedent" of the variability over the last 200 years? I think they addressed that issue very well. The fact is, there is no precedent. There is not alot of case law supporting variable voting standards, EXCEPT that up to this point, we've allowed different precincts and counties to set their own standards. The fact that nobody has fought that issue in an aggressive manner in 200 years DOESN'T mean there is a precedent. It just means that it hasn't had any bearing up to this point. I'm a supporter of Roe v. Wade, but here's how your logic plays out in the RvW case: The fact that people had been jailed during the previous 180 years prior to RvW, and that little case law existed supporting a woman's right to choose, while much existed supporting anti-abortion stands, means that the SC IGNORED precedent and overturned 180 years of case law. In the prevailing 180 years, according to your logic, the SC IGNORED the abortion issue (just as you claim they've ignored the voting issue). Fact is, your logic doesn't have a leg to stand on.

To: Windseye who wrote (87895)	12/14/2000 10:55:08 AM
From: Andrew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

I agree with you about the SC, but there is a silver lining in Bush's ascension to the WH. I videotaped Bush's less-than-stellar acceptance speech and placed the tape in my medicine cabinet in case I ever need an emetic!

To: Windseye who wrote (87895)	12/14/2000 2:56:11 PM
From: Loki	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Windseye...I respectfully disagree with your opinion... The people of FLA made their selection for the 25 electors to vote for president. It was certified. The US SC ruled 7-2 that the contest action was unequal under the Constitution. The protest and contest actions sought to regain, unequally, the margin of error in favor of only one candidate. This has to be clear to anyone who can still think in a non partisan way. RE..."but I sincerely question the arbitrary, capricious and selective application of the criteria." Your statement must surely apply more to the method of protest and contest from the attorneys for Gore. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!" I do not see where you find the grounds to argue that the US SC .... "in fact made the law". Philosophical differences do not necessarily mean political. I see the differences in the US SC decision, between upholding the Constitution and what others personally believe is fair. Since the description of "fair" varies it can be looked upon as an amorphous liquid. The Constitution is the container that gives equal shape to that "fair liquid". Without that we would have anarchy, for each of us has a different view of what is fair. It is because of the Constitution that you and I are permitted to express our dissenting views. Under different laws one of our opinions might be judged "unfair". To those above the partisan rhetoric this has been a wonderful education of American government. Loki P.S. CSPAN has an excellent Q&A session with Clarence Thomas... to be replayed Saturday at 7:00PM. Much better than the relatively partisan and undereducated media.