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 (285322)	8/9/2002 3:53:34 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

By all the laws and rules and procedures in place for the election the ballots were counted properly and all post evaluation show the results were correct and PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH won. Why is this so hard for you. Just because rules and procedures were in place before the election did not make the process constitutional. For the last time I'll summarize the ruling so you can understand: (1) states must provide process to ensure legal votes are treated the same (2) you can't discuss what process is sufficient until you define what a legal vote is (3) Rehnquist, Sclia and Thomas thought the USSC had the authority to defined "legal vote" as properly marked ballots, but the majority did not agree that they had such power) (4) The majority admitted that the Fla could define legal vote by intent but said, in the part of the opinion you posted, that the court's process in applying such standard did not compart with equal protection (something that would surprise the drafters of the 14th amendment since elections for the next century would be done manually with a general intent standard) (5) The majority thus left Fla's definition of legal vote in place and briefly explained the process that would be required if such definition was used. They concluded there was no time but didn't explain how the process in place before the election provided satisfactory process when legal vote was defined by intent. You can talk process all you want about process, but process is only relevant to how vote is defined. If Rehnquist had prevailed and vote was defined as aproperly marked ballot the process in place before the election would clearly have been fine. However, he did not prevail in this argument, and the court decision was sufficient process when vots is defined by intent.