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 (115842)	12/14/2000 12:48:55 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

Isn't it possible that the combination of state's rights and a national election make this case unique? I see that as being a HUGE factor. Remember that this started with a 9-0 decision that the FL SC wrote a bad ruling with the extension of the deadline. I think in a national election like this that is good to have our highest courts make sure everything is on the up and up. To you it seems more important that they honor their state's rights position more than any other factor. What if the FL SC ruled 4-3 against Gore? He probably would have gone to the Supreme Court. If they would have ruled 5-4 to overturn the FL SC in that case would you still be using your state's right argument. I expect not. To me they should rule on what is right and wrong as it relates to the U.S. Constitution. It is good that they made reference to not setting a precedent. That means they were saying that they still feel that state's rights have the utmost of importance, but in this UNIQUE case, fairness and adherence to the constition were more important. Does it matter at all that they voted 7-2 to overrule the FL SC designed re-count? Were they partisan in that decision?