Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (2203)	12/1/2000 10:50:19 PM
From: John Metcalf	Respond to of 40233

Thanks, Peter, for the link to the msn Supreme Court article, which I found interesting , but rather extreme, and vulgar in scope. This is not a contest for the Justices to demonstrate their command. They are lifers, and don't need any PR "spin" nor approval. Conversely, their characterization as strict constructionists is appropriate. The point about whether the Florida Supremes ruled on the basis of a State constitutional issue is surely understandable in a constructionist court. The question implied, to me, that Justices were questioning whether the Florida decision was conditioned on interpretation of the State Constitution, or totally baseless. In plain English, if the Court does not follow a State statute, it must have a higher principle, presumably that the statute is trumped by the State Constitution. Of course, this is just based on the tapes, of which I heard about two-thirds. Also, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure you have a better one than I-:) Back to the biotech valuation issue -- is there yet a consensus on which Presidential outcome will harm or benefit the industry?

To: Biomaven who wrote (2203)	12/2/2000 10:32:42 AM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 40233

[OT] Peter - I was wondering what your take was on the whole issue of whether Article 2 of the constitution and US code Title 3/sections 5 & 15 apply to the interaction of the Florida legislature with the Florida Supreme Court (or however this may be phrased) or if these laws apply only to (U.S.) congressional 'safe harbor' provisions/oversight of state elections. During Olson's presentation, Souter made the point that section 15 (the code that, I believe, designates congress as the final arbiter if 'controversy and chaos' follows an election - this section was in fact a response to just such conditions following the Tilden/Hayes election) never mentions 'federal litigation preceding...' congressional implementation of this section of the law. Olson/Bush appeared to be pleading just such intervention (however, it still seems to me Olson's argument was excellent and that this gray area between Federal and state 'jurisdiction' (probably the wrong term) is a minefield). Could you also explain what 'The United States Code' is and how it relates to the constitution. I'm assuming a challenge against the code is NOT a constitutional issue...but how does that impact whether or not it is a 'federal' issue? Can you provide any insights on McPherson (sp?)? I'm half way through the court transcript and completely spellbound (and I'm sure to have questions about the legitimacy of the Gore case as well) TIA Scott