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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (9044)	9/23/2003 2:52:03 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793744

When it comes to issues of the law, there are few better sources for accurate analysis then Hugh Hewitt. I remember during the Florida fiasco, he called just about every turn in the drama on the money. Check out this post from earlier today. Posted at 3:05 PM, Pacific hughhewitt.com How Appealing has lots of links on the Ninth Circuit. I watched the argument, and thought that Judge Kozinski gave a short course in how to be a judge --asking the best questions of both sides. I thought the lawyers --all four-- were not demonstrating effective technique in oral argument. It isn't like the judges are going to make up their minds based on the arguments, but there is benefit in trying to frame the single crucial issue. None of them left a lasting impression, which means wasted opportunities everywhere. Of course it was an 11 judge panel, which is out of the ordinary and presents a sort of theater-in-the-round atmosphere, but none of the lawyers put anything on the table that was guaranteed to be a centerpiece of discussion at the conference that followed. I am predicting a decision allowing a vote on the two recall questions and the two initiatives on October 7. Judge Kozinski will not pass by the opportunity to write on Bush v. Gore, but Chief Judge Schroeder may vote with the majority to allow the election in order to keep the opinion assignment to herself. A 9-2 or 10-1 vote reversing the three judge panel wouldn't surprise me. Why? Because not one judge mounted a vigorous defense of the three judges' reasoning. Not a good sign for them, but a very good sign for the law.