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 (121455)	1/9/2001 1:00:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Souter said that the stay was wrong, because it might well have been worked out at a lower level, and relief could have been sought later. What he said about the equity issue is this: C. It is only only the third argument before us that there is a meritorious argument for relief, as this court's Per Curiam opinion recognizes. That, my friend, is a concurrence.

To: mst2000 who wrote (121455)	1/9/2001 1:12:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

This is what Breyer said: Part I-A-1 ....The majority's third concern does implicate principles of fundamental fairness.....since the use of different standards could favor one or the other of the candidates, since time was, and is, too short to permit the lower courts to iron out significant differences through ordinary judicial review, and since the relevant distinction was embodied in the order of the State's highest court, I agree that, in these very special circumstances, basic principles of fairness may well have counseled the adoption of a uniform standard to address the problem. Yet again, partial concurrence!

To: mst2000 who wrote (121455)	1/9/2001 1:16:22 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You said: What law school did you go to? The Rush Limbaugh School? Seems like a personal attack to me. You distorted your own post. If Souter did not think that it was unconstitutional, He would not have suggested a remand. He would have written to uphold FSC. If there was no constitutional problem why remand ? Makes no sense.