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: hamsandwich who wrote (142653)	5/4/2001 4:31:18 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 769667

Just as the dems argue that alleged obstruction of the vote in Florida's black districts is a violation of federal law, 7 SC justices found that not tabulating votes equally in Florida is a federal issue.

To: hamsandwich who wrote (142653)	5/4/2001 4:42:03 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the opinion, adequate precedent was cited to look at equity issues involved in voting under the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court was not mainly interpreting law in its superceded opinion, but applying equity considerations in mandating a standardless recount. However, even the dissents acknowledged that the lack of standards was a problem, but denied the urgency of taking over the case to cure it. Instead, they suggested that waiting to see if it worked itself out in Florida, and, if it didn't, then SCOTUS could take a look. The counter- argument was partially contained in the clincher: the Florida legislature intended to avail themselves of the "safe harbor", and therefore there was a deadline to contend with. Since the issue of a standard would have required further litigation in Florida, and might have dropped things in the lap of SCOTUS anyway, there was some urgency in settling things. Remember, the legislature has the absolute right to set a deadline for contesting elections........

To: hamsandwich who wrote (142653)	5/4/2001 5:09:01 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You may dissent but you would be wrong. Both the US Constitution and a federal statute were part of the case in the Bush election decision. It makes no difference if it was a "bad ballot". The ballots need to be reasonably decipherable, not idiot prooof and the final proof is that the butterfly suits got tossed out and more than 97% of the voters got it right. No case. Period. Clintons guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, indeed by his own admissions. The political climate dictated his acquittal, a serious breach of Constitutional duty by the "defectors". There is no doubt that perjury, intentionally misleading a federal court, suborning or condoning perjury by others (Lewinski affidavit, attempting to deny another citizen her day in Court and misusing the office of POTUS constitutes an impeachable offense in my eyes. You differ? I don't quibble that the outcome was as it was and needs to be respected. In fact, that was my original point is that we all must respect legal results we don't like in an orderly society. I didn't like the OJ verdict either but he is a free man today just as Scumbag Clinton was allowed to finish his term. JLA