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: H-Man who wrote (121424)	1/9/2001 9:35:50 AM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Taken out of context, your quotation appears (and the key word is "appears") correct, because Souter does say that the equal protection issue does raise a "meritorious" argument for relief: "It is only on the third issue before us that there is a meritorious argument for relief, as this Court' s Per Curiam opinion recognizes." And as you point out, Souter does say that "because the course of state proceedings has been interrupted, time is short, and the issue is before us, I think it sensible for the Court to address it." I have repeatedly acknowledged that both Breyer and Souter felt that there were equal protection concerns that, with the case IMPROPERLY before the USSC, were worthy of consideration. But both differed diametrically from the majority in the majoprity's conclusion that the FSC had acted "unconstitutionally", that the issues raised a sufficient federal question for USSC review, and that the USSC therefore had any business reversing the FSC on the issue. The sections of Souter's opinion that you cite are taken completely out of context, and in doing so, the meaning and significance of his point is missed entirely, which is that Souter did NOT agree that the argument raised, i.e., that inconsistencies in how counties were counting substantially similar ballots were arbitrary and unnecessary, was sufficient to raise a federal constitutional issue that the USSC needed to resolve: "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." In other words, the only reason he reaches the issue of the different standards, and suggests a remedy, is because (in his view) the Court erroneously interfered with the State Court proceedings and chose to reverse. Souter states explicitly that the USSC should not have taken the case. So if the issue of different recounting standards was one that rendered the actions of the FSC "unconstitutional" -- that is, raised a federal constitutional issue, he would have joined the Per Curium decision to reverse. But he did not and said that the decision to take the case was erroneous. Only AFTER (and because) the Gang of Five took the case does Souter weigh in that, on remand, they could have instructed the FSC to cure the one problem he saw with what they had done, rather than assume they couldn't, and appoint a President. Souter did NOT rule that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally. He ruled that no constitutional issue was presented. And he only raised the different remedial approach to the other 2 dissenters because USSC was in the case erroneously. And the bottom line proof of that is that Souter does not even concur in part with the Per Curium decision. It is a pure dissent. It was 5-4. Period.

To: H-Man who wrote (121424)	1/9/2001 3:09:51 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

H-Man what I find so stupid about Souter mixed position is the absurdity of the fact that he says on one hand the counting going on is unfair and thus illegal, So the solution is to do nothing, don't stop it and don't define what is correct and Souter's total lack of comprehension of reality that even in two weeks or a month you could not create and train a group of several hundred individuals to count in any kind of similar manner as to interpretation of what no one wants to say is objectively an intent of the voter or not. These same stupidity was shared by the other justices who wrote about the majority opinion. I consider the four who dissented to be certifiable retards or idiots in the understanding of the practical aspects of implementing a legal process. All nine vacated the original Florida Supreme Court decision. Four dummy's I guess did not know why they did it. For reference all of the Supreme Court Ruling and dissent can be found at. watman.com Tom Watson tosiwmee.