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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (119606)	12/27/2000 11:38:41 AM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

Tom, your first mistake is quoting the majority opinion rather than the dissents themselves. The majority mischaracterizes the position of the dissenters in order to make it appear that there was greater consensus among the 9 justices than there really was. But don't let me make the point -- let's read from the text of the dissents, where the point could not possibly have been made clearer: Breyer: "The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume." Doesn't sound like a justice prepared to rule that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally to me. How about this nugget: "Despite the reminder that this case involves "an election for the President of the United States," ante, at 13 (REHNQUIST, C. J., concurring), no pre-eminent legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required this Court to hear this case, let alone to issue a stay that stopped Florida' s recount process in its tracks." Souter: "The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ------ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante at ------, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court' s orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post at -------- (slip op., at 1). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U. S. C. Section 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision." If you read these opinions as an entirety, you will see very clearly how both Breyer and Souter make mincemeat of the notion that the equal protection concern or the fact that this was a presidential election required the federal judiciary to intervene -- which was the core pretext for the majority'd decision to take the case (and then to appoint Bush president by saying that the clock had run out on the game). It was a 5-4 decision. Sandra O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy trying to make themselves feel better about the murder they committed by calling it something it wasn't does not change the fact that 4 justices dissented to the opinion as a whole. And calling me "retarded" just shows that you are a twisted right wing dick, and an intellectually dishonest one at that. MST