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: Dan B. who wrote (284755)	8/8/2002 12:15:03 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

It really wasn't 7-2 as Breyer said he might agree there was a problem but didn't need to decide. However, I agree with you that the uneven counting could be viewed as a problem. The outragous part is crafting a remedy that violated its own principles. Scalia can’t explain how Florida counties which had different machines which would treat overvotes and undervotes differently could satisfy the requirements of his own ruling and that after stating what the standard must be, the court did not allow a recount. After going to the extraordinary steps of stopping a recount, it is silly to suggest the court didn't have the power to extend the safe harbor deadline. Rather, such should have been mandated by the very notion of equal protection he put forth. It is also amusing that the originalists on the court, who spend so much time scolding the activist for inventing new equal protection rights (such as gender discrimination) that were not envisioned in 1866, are so willing to abandon their principles when it suits them. But this is nothing new. I would like to see Scalia argue that anyone thought that all election in 1866, which were all done manually with no uniform standards, violated equal protection. Of course he makes this arguments only for types of discrimination he doesn't mind, like gender discrimination. I would also like him to explain what happened to the requirement of showing purposeful discrimination that applies in all other equal protection jurisprudence such as racial claims, which is, of course, the specific harm the amendment was adopted for. Hence Scalia et al now provide more protection for voting than he would for race discrimination. How can a conservative ever call a liberal judge an activist again after this?