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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115800)	12/14/2000 12:04:51 PM
From: donjuan_demarco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

What I love about the majority decision is that they invented a new Constitional right, but then claim that it only applies to that particular case. Whoa Nelly!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115800)	12/14/2000 12:04:57 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

On CNN last night, I heard about 20 times that GWB lost the popular vote. I expect to hear it at least once per week for the next four years. GORE IN 4!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115800)	12/14/2000 12:15:36 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Indeed. Wait till the public begins reading the past decisions of the Rehnquist Court relative to its states rights decisions. The legal scholars, and historians among them, will determine, write and lecture that no precedent existed for what those five justices did on Bush's behalf. I agree with legal critics who note the Supreme Court's pro-Bush ruling sits right next to the infamously dreaded Dread Scott Decision.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115800)	12/14/2000 12:19:38 PM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"There is no other rational basis because the decision is contrary to their past judicial philosophy." Hmmmm....no basis for their rationale. I don't suppose that "selective recounting standards" is good enough reason for you? What about an all Democrat Florida Supreme Court which overstepped its authority and rewrote the laws governing elections? Oh, and what about a democratic candidate which only wants his votes counted while using the legal system to try and reject all ballots which might favor the other candidate? Hmmm......maybe you're right! Other than these reasons and half a dozen others which I didn't list, I really don't see why the USSC should have taken this case.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115800)	12/14/2000 12:25:49 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

In the law schools all over the country, the various professors of constitutional law will be pointing out how these five judges departed from their usual judicial philosophy on federalism and states rights to create a decision based on political reasons. There is no other rational basis because the decision is contrary to their past judicial philosophy. This will not escape the attention of constitutional law scholars. Expect to hear more about it. Law professors are apolitical? Let's just use the more acceptable words that relate to philosophy....Liberal and Conservative....there, doesn't that make everyone feel right at home in the human race.