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: SecularBull who wrote (117967)	12/19/2000 10:44:10 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The statutory standard was "clear intent of the voter". A single impartial judge sworn to uphold the law could have applied that standard on a consistent basis with no help from the Supreme Court. Pending its decision, at the very least, the Court could have allowed the gathering and separating of ballots (i.e., the separation of indisputable votes -- hanging and swinging chads -- from the more difficult ones), thus moving the process forward and preserving the time necessary to conclude the task. After all, 6 judges ultimately held that recounts were not per se unconstitutional -- 2 of the 6 said there was no time (based on an artificial deadline, and through their own contribution to delaying the count). Instead, it had decided to put a bullet in Gore's head by imposing a Catch-22 - if you apply a standard that is more specific than the legislature's standard -- "clear intent of the voter" -- it would be making new law, which would (they claimed) violate Title 3; but if you tried to apply the precise standard adopted by the legislature (even through a single impartial judge who could apply it consistently), it would not be specific enough and thus would violate equal protection (applied to the counting of votes for the first time in this case). In my opinion, both of those conclusions were legally wrong, by a wide margin. I will take it for granted that you disagree.