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 (121442)	1/9/2001 11:53:44 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

More news on Chavez - In 1986, while she was running for the US Senate, it was disclosed she had defaulted on some student loans. She repaid the loans only after she went to work for the government. Is this Dubya's attempt to restore honor and integrity to the government?

To: H-Man who wrote (121442)	1/9/2001 12:50:00 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

What personal attacks? I said conservatives and Bush supporters are arguing that this was a 7-2 decision (when it is plainly, on its face, a 5-4 decision) because they are trying to make it seem like there was greater consensus than there actually was. You consider that a "personal attack"?? I repeat - Souter said that it was wrong to take the case and, having taken it erroneously, the Court erred further in how it decided the case. He addressed the equal protection issue only because the case was erroneously taken and, having made an erroneous decision to reverse the FSC, he believed that the majority should have addressed the equal protection problem that existed by virtue of inconsistent standards rather than putting a bullet in Gore's head (which is exactly what SCOTUS did). He would not have ruled the FSC's decision unconstitutional, however, notwithstanding his concern on the EP issue. That conclusion could not be more clear on the face of Souter's decision, and your asserting that I am "wrong" does not change that fact. He did NOT rule that the FSC acted unconstitutionally, and he did not concur in part with that part of the Per Curium opinion that held that it was unconstitutional. On that issue, the Gang of Five stands alone. So I do agree with you in one sense -- it is obvious from Souter's dissent what Souter was doing. It is most obvious in his official decision (and explanatory statement) in which he dissents from the Per Curium opinion without concurring in any part of it. But I will be glad to cite more text from the Souter's dissent and Breyer's dissent if you insist on continuing this botched argument that there was a 7-2 majority that ruled the FSC to have acted unconstitutionally. You got your President -- maybe next time, you'll actually elect him through the votes of millions of individuals, and not just the votes of 5 ideologically conservative Supreme Court justices. Probably not though.