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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (262261)	11/26/2005 6:25:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

Re: "Are you saying the recount the GOP demanded in WA state was unconstitutional?" Not at all. A lawful recount is one thing. What Gore asked for was unconstitutional, and as I've been telling you, the Supreme Court said so by a 7-2 vote. Questionably, the USSC ruled that it was unconstitutional only because of the way the recount was to be done because of time constraints imposed by FLA legislation. In FLA, final votes were to be in place by 12 December. The FLA Supreme Court was willing to waive certain counting requirements to meet that deadline that the USSC was not willing to waive. There is great contention over the USSC's ruling........it was considered unreasonable, violating both the Constitution and states' rights. Because of 9/11 and the need to be united, much of the contentions were dropped but its common knowledge among Constitutionalists that the 2000 election tainted the USSC along with the country. There is a price to be paid for the Court's questionable behavior and Bush/Rove's obstruction of an election, and the bill is just now coming due. "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)." straylight.law.cornell.edu