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 (125018)	2/2/2001 11:14:28 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

Neocon, Constitutional scholars will have to argue over whether a strict constructionist would regard Dec 12th or Dec 18th as the more binding date. That, however, is not the main reason many believe that the Supreme Court acted out of character in Bush vs. Gore. The reason centers around its agreement to hear Bush vs. Gore on equal protection grounds. This Supreme Court has a clear track record on equal protection suits; they do not find new classes of discriminated-against people. This track record includes their own decision of Nov 22nd, where they found the equal protection arguments unworthy of review. What changed? They also have a track record on the rights of state courts to adjudicate state law. On both these points, they did a 180 degree turn from their record. These are the main reasons they are charged with acting out of character. A number of books on the Election 2000 debacle will be coming out soon which may clarify the arguments. Alan Dershowitz is writing one -- I think we can all guess which side he will argue. E.J.Dionne and William Kristol are writing another -- I look forward to reading that one.