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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124519)	1/30/2001 8:11:19 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

>>If you believe the second decision was apolitical, then you must believe that Scalia would have ruled exactly the same way if Gore had been ahead and Bush had gotten a recount. I don't believe it. << Nor do I. I have wondered how each of the key players in this mess would have acted had Gore been 500 votes ahead on Wednesday morning. Would Bush, Baker, Rove, DeLay and the boys have folded their tents and gone home? Would Gore decry recount after recount, and urge quick closure to the matter? If Bush-leaning counties needed a few extra days to finish a recount, would Katherine Harris have taken the same strict reading of the law, or would she have sought to harmonize the deadline and recount statutes? Would the Dem AG have rendered a different opinion about the operation of recount/deadline statutes? How would the Florida Supreme Court have ruled differently, if at all? And perhaps most importantly, how would the conservative advocates of judicial restraint on the US Supreme Court have viewed interfereing with the state's procedures governing recounts, upon which GW's future would have hinged, and how would the minority have viewed the issue? My view is that each of these folks or groups would have behaved in a manner very similar to how their counterparts actually did behave. I think it is naive to suggest that Bush would have walked away, Gore would have supported recounts, Harris would have stalwartly stuck to the statutory "deadline," and the Dem AG's view of the law may have been different. And none of that would have surprised me, because they are all politicians acting in their own (or party's) self interest. The courts are a different manner. It is certainly true, and to be expected, that judges approach and apply the law based on their own philosophical and jurisprudential views. What we should be able to expect from the courts is that at least they would apply their established views in a consistent manner, even if the result is not what, as outside observers, interested citizens or political partisans, they would like to see. I certainly dont think that is what happened with the US Supreme Court in this case (apart from know who appointed the Florida Supreme Court, I dont know as much about them as the SCOTUS, but my guess is that the result would have been the same). I wasn't surprised that Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas were political or result oriented; Rehnquist one held that a law that discriminated against pregnant women was not gender discrimination because it discriminated not between men and women but between pregnant females and nonpregnant persons. But I was disappointed in Kennedy and O'Connor. I do think it will have an adverse effect on the Court for a long time to come.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124519)	1/30/2001 8:25:52 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Quick takes on your points: "Didn't you find it strange that in real life the SOS expressed no interest at all in getting an accurate count?" They DID get the FAIREST recount possible. That is the one that favored neither candidate. Gore wanted rules that favored him. It had to be stopped. "I guess all the previous cases were flukes, huh?" The other recounts you that I believe you are referring to had a judge rule on the very few ballots that were truly in dispute. This case would have required hundreds of people (not judges) to determine tens of thousands of votes in a couple of days. It is completely different, and again I will say that if you think that is more accurate than the margin of error you are crazy. You must realize that Florida law did not have an additional provision to keep counting if the mandatory provision made the margin closer. If it was closer than 1/2% there was a required re-count. They did it, and he was still behind. Sorry it was so close. You believe (I think) that either the system that Al took advantage of, or the one that was shot down by 7-2 would be fairer than the impartial machine recount. IT WOULD NOT. "I guess all the previous cases were flukes, huh? He already won. Twice. Way way way more shameless to keep it going. He conceded once, and this would have been a good time to save some dignity, regroup and try it again. Either he played the game against better opponents, or he was wrong with his interpretation of the law. I believe both of those premises. Regarding who's attacking was more out of line I look at it like this. If you walk up and punch someone in the face, all rules are out. Al Gore punched GWB in the face when he kept going after the mandated automatic recount. He threw out the gentleman's rules and went for a weasely way to win. Guess what, he got his but kicked, and in my mind did great damage to the demo party. Time will tell, but I view them far more harshly than I used to. For an example of class in a situation like this see how John Ashcroft handled loosing an election to a dead person, even after some polls were illegaly kept open after they were to close. You seem to have integrity, but your party does not. America is starting to see this, and I can only hope that the trend continues. I am getting tired of the dem leaders telling their constituents that they cannot succeed on their own. I am tired of the name calling and the lying. I am tired of the ends justifies the means. I am tired of the class warfare. I like GWB's message of compassionate conservatism and responsibility. I also think it is good for the country. And I believe Antonin Scalia is a good man and a good Supreme Court Justice. If they all leaned the way of Ginsberg (although I am sure she is a nice person) I would consider packing up my tax money and taking it elsewhere.