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 (262704)	12/14/2005 11:52:58 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1574446

Re: "Sorry but I already have identified the problem in another post. You seem to equate what you consider to be an unfair request for a recount to one that is unconstitutional. That's a huge leap that is incorrect" Sorry, but you lie above. I equate what Gore asked for to what the courts rejected. That's not a huge leap, it's what happened. Re: "Do you read anything I have posted? In the 7/2 vote, the USSC did not say a recount per se was unconstitutional but rather the way the FLA Sup. Ct. structured the recount made it unconstitutional." In fact, the FSC ruled partly against Gore, and the USSC ruled against the rest which the FSC had allowed. I'm quite sure the truth is beyond you at this point. You write as if I'd said the SC claimed a recount per se was unconstitutional. I did not, ever (yes, you've had this misconception earlier as I recall). Who knows what you think you are responding to. The vote to deny a "proper" recount at the late date was indeed 5-4. The vote against the recounting methods requested by Gore and his lawyers, and passed on in part by the FSC, was 7-2. Gore asked for an unfair counting of votes from the start, and the USSC affirmed my opinion on this 7-2. That's the practical reality. It will be remembered. Dan B.