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: mst2000 who wrote (117963)	12/19/2000 7:53:01 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The recount, as it was being conducted at the time it was stayed, lacked a standard that would have made it constitutional. Therefore, to continue the recount would have been a vain effort, since SCOTUS would not have allowed it to count without a standard adopted in advance. A decision from SCOTUS more quickly than it was delivered is unprecedented. The Florida SC seemed to believe that the Dec. 12 deadline was valid. In the end, Gore and the FLSC made it impossible for him to have an adequate contest period; not Bush or SCOTUS. LoF

To: mst2000 who wrote (117963)	12/20/2000 1:17:19 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

December 12th was not an artificial deadline. Actually, the court was affirming the authority of the legislature under Article II. It determined that it was the intent of the legislature to end the contest period to take advantage of the safe harbor, and therefore deferred to the legislature. That, my friend, is federalism......

To: mst2000 who wrote (117963)	12/20/2000 1:23:14 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Perhaps this repost will help: I will not take the time to dissect each one of the points, since they have been discussed to death already. I will summarize the other point of view, though: since this is a federal election, and the Florida Supreme Court overruled Judge Sauls, and supplanted the mechanisms and timetables established by the Florida legislature on ostensible equity grounds, the federal Supreme Court got to scrutinize whether there were sufficient reason to intervene, and whether the solution propounded were itself equitable (under the Fourteenth Amendment and doctrine of incorporation). Even granting the right of the Florida Supreme Court to intervene (something of which some justices were doubtful), the solution, which purported to improve equity, was found to be deficient. It is silly to say that the legislature propounded the "clear intent of the voter" standard, since it was begging to be clarified by the court, and the court had already been aggressive in intervention. Thus, the failure to propound standards which were universal and clear vitiated the ruling. Now, it was conceivable that the Florida Supreme Court could have satisfied the objection and proceeded. But there was no time to do so without missing the "safe harbor" date, and subjecting whatever slate was affirmed to challenge in Congress. It was the clear intent of the legislature to meet the "safe harbor" deadline. Although the SCOTUS affirmed the right of the SCOFLA to order the manual recounts in the first place, as part of the contest period, it took the position that the SCOFLA did not have the right to override the intent of the legislature to meet the "safe harbor" provision, ending the contest period. In other words, it did not back the view that the equity considerations overrode the intent of the legislature to end the contest by the "safe harbor", and thus ensure that its electors were beyond challenge in the Congress. Since, by Article II, the legislature has the absolute right to determine the method of selection of electors, including the right to take back selection from the electorate, its intention to back whatever electors are certified by the 12th cannot be overridden.