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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (285213)	8/9/2002 10:59:53 AM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Boy, you don't give up. Your argument assumes a legal vote is defined as a properly marked ballot. Only 3 Justices agreed with this and hence was not part of the majority opinion. Thus, the majority opinion is premised on the assumption that improperly marked ballots can be legal votes based on some intent standard. This is why Scalia partly based the decision on unequal treatment of improperly marked ballots. I'll repeat for clarity, if you want to discuss the propriety of the Fla. SC court decision or whether Rehnquist's concurrence should have been adopted by the majority, the question of whether legal votes should be limited to properly marked ballots. But it is not relevant to the equal protection analysis of the majority opinion. If you can't understand this I really don't have the time to keep explaining it to you.