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 (121429)	1/9/2001 9:56:14 AM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nothing was taken out of context. Souter explains in detail why the recount procedures were unconstitutional. When Souter found that standards were arbitrary. That means unconstitutional. When Souter states that "it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review" he is not referring to equal protection at all, Only his wish that the court would not need to address it. i.e.; If Bush would have won, then no harm exists (and thus no EP problem). Or have congress deal with it. You are applying context where it does not exist. You wanted a partial concurance with the majority, you got it. You wanted an unconstitional finding, you got it. When taken in context it is clear that Souter finds the procedures for the recount unconstituional. Period. You are the one taking it out of context. Anybody who reads SCOTUS opinion will know. It is quite clear to me, based on the dynamics of the court, past history etc. that if the majority would have agreed with Souter, on the other issues it would be 7/2, maybe higher.