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: tejek who wrote (262268)	11/27/2005 3:45:42 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574007

Re: "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." No. That issue gave us the 5-4 ruling not to recount at all. The 7-2 ruling was specific as to the type of recounting requested by Gore, and of course was a separate issue ruled upon. Re: "its common knowledge among Constitutionalists that the 2000 election tainted the USSC along with the country." In fact, the idea that anything was tainted is not shared among constitutionalists so much as it's just an opinion of some. Others very much disagree. But your case for this lies in the 5-4 ruling (itself somewhat explained in your provided qoute), not the 7-2 ruling, which is and should be, disputed by very few, no doubt. The bolded part of your quote is misleading if thought to indicate that only one issue was adjudicated. As explained here, that isn't so. Both issues ruled upon were part of the remedy, you see. Dan B.