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: Neocon who wrote (121464)	1/9/2001 2:30:53 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

When you say "I dissent" as opposed to "I concur in part and dissent in part", that is a dissent. Not a concurrence. You use the words "I concur" to establish concurrence. Saying that there is merit in one argument does not a concurrence make. I also thought there was merit in the argument that all counties examining punch ballots in Florida should apply the same standard, but that does not mean that I thought the FSC had acted unconstitutionally. If Souter believed that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally, he would have concurred, at least in part - he did not. And if you understood Souter's argument (and the principle of federal judicial restraint that you conservatives claim to be so enamored of) better (i.e., that Title 3 reserves the resolution of this particular issue to state courts and the US Congress, but NOT the USSC), you would understand that finding merit in the standards issue is about a thousand miles from reversing the FSC because it acted unconstitutionally.