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 (121469)	1/9/2001 2:43:15 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No, this is what Breyer said: "The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume." Doesn't sound like a justice prepared to rule that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally to me. He also said this: "Despite the reminder that this case involves "an election for the President of the United States," ante, at 13 (REHNQUIST, C. J., concurring), no pre-eminent legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required this Court to hear this case, let alone to issue a stay that stopped Florida' s recount process in its tracks." Now that's weird. If Breyer agreed with the portion of the majority opinion which held that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally, and merely disagreed on remedy, why would he say that there was "no pre-eminent legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required this Court to hear this case . . . " Sorry Neocon, the key to understanding Breyer's decision is to read the last three words of it: "I respectfully dissent". What is especially bizzare about the need you conservatives have to claim that there was greater consensus than there really was is that the four dissents are nothing less than scathing criticisms of both the majority and concurring opinions. How can you seriously argue or believe that this was anything less than a 5-4 split?? Is everything else you say here as reliable as your "benign" interpretation of dissenting opinions that literally make mincemeat out of the majority and concurring opinions? Incredible.