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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3377)	3/18/2002 6:04:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

A kindof strange SI quirk. Your message shows as being a reply to my post #2366. However when I follow the link to my post and look at the replies to my post I get only one reply which is a different post by you. siliconinvestor.com _____________ Now to the substance of the articles. I think that both Virginia Thomas and Micheal Kinsley make some good points. The most obviously true point made by Kinsley is that both sides play politics with judicial nominations. Although I would note that only one of Clinton's nomines was not confirmed, and that all of his nominees got a chance at a vote in the full senate. I disagree with Kinsey's charecterization of Clarence Thomas as lying "comatose in the Supreme Court". Virginia Thomas's best points IMO are that both her husband and Judge Pickering have been strongly attacked and that many of the attacks seem to be unjustified or at least exagerations and that there is little evidence to show a lack of concern for civil rights law by Judge Pickering. Of course both of them spin the facts they do have to make the other side look worse but that's hardly new in Washington (or in most other places I imagine). Tim