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: Carolyn who wrote (121353)	1/8/2001 7:26:39 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Same as mst2000? JLA

To: Carolyn who wrote (121353)	1/8/2001 7:39:42 PM
From: mst2000	Respond to of 769667

It was 5-4. There were 4 dissents, and all 4 were dissenting in their entirety from both the Per Curium and concurring opinions. The continuing inability of Bush supporters to reconcile themselves to the fact that 4 of 9 justices on the USSC would not have reversed the Florida Supreme Court on any basis is beyond me. Look at the decision again. There are 4 dissents. None of the dissents concur in any part of the majority's decision. The 2 dissenters who raised equal protection concerns made it clear that those concerns did not rise to a level where there was a basis to take the case and reverse on ANY basis -- but as long as 5 justices in the majority did opt to take the case, two of the four dissenters saw it as appropriate on remand to instruct the FSC to adopt a uniform standard of review in order rectify inconsistencies in how different counties were counting (and had already counted) substantially identical ballots. But both of those dissenters (Souter and Breyer) made it abundantly clear that their concerns did not justify reversal, or even taking the case in the first place, because the case did not raise a federal issue for the USSC to resolve. They were merely making the point that if the 2 swing justices (O'Connor and Kennedy) were going to reverse on the basis of equal protection (and not the broader arguments for reversal that the 3 concurring justices -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas -- were championing), that they could have sent it back to Florida with instructions for the FSC to address the EP concern that existed, rather than assuming (in some part because they themselves had cut off the progress of the count by staying it pending their decision) that there was insufficient time to meet the real deadline to resolve all issues, which was, at the very least, 6 days later, and at worst almost a month later (1/6/00). But both also said that they would not reverse on the basis of EP, and neither thought the USSC should have intervened at all. 5-4. It was the only vote that counted, and it was the only vote that Bush won when it was all said and done. And, no, we can't move beyond the issue as long as you guys continue to mischaracterize it. Get over your mischaracterizations or your boredom, I could care less which.

To: Carolyn who wrote (121353)	1/8/2001 7:50:10 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

To hammer home the point, the two justices in dissent who raised EP issues were Souter and Breyer - these are taken from their dissents: 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." Gee, I don't see how you can count those 2 as part of a 7-2 majority. Must be the same quality of counting that led Bush to "win" Florida in the first place.