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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (133198)	2/20/2001 1:59:33 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580594

It only became a national constitutional issue when the FL Supreme Ct did not come up with a ruling that the Sup. Ct liked or don't you remember that nitially the Sup. Ct kicked the whole thing back to the FL Sup. Ct. Constitutionally the issue is the responsibility of the state legislature. It passed two laws one saying that the recounts can't be accepted past a certain date, another saying they may be accepted. Under the second law the secretary of state would decide. The secretary of state decided not to accept the recounts past the proscribed date. The FL SC apparently decided that one law saying "can't" and one law saying "may" added up to the requirement that the recounts be "must" be accepted. The US Supreme Court should in my opinion have overturned the FL SC on this basis. This would not have been a case of the federal government limiting the authority of the states nor would it in my opinion be judicial activism. The way the court did decide it, as an equal protection clause issue does strike me as at least a bit closer to judicial activism. It wasn't outright against something in the constitution but it is at least a gray area and it might open up a can of worms for future elections. Tim