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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (142898)	10/14/2005 8:53:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

There's no doubt in my mind that a Ginsburg or a Souter or a Scalia were better math students than Miers. I posted a few days ago that the average LSAT for SMU is 155. The average for Harvard is 170. That's one and one half deviations difference. "Beldar," who is strongly defending Miers, says that when he was recruiting Texas lawyers he found the top ones at SMU were competitive with any place, but they were a thin group in each graduation class. I did my sophomore year at SMU back in 52/53, and if you are going to practice in Dallas, it is the place to go, IMO. I have no doubt that Mier is sharp. But she doesn't fit what we now expect as a Supreme court justice. We have got away, in the last twenty years, from any nominations for the Supremes that weren't out of the top drawer. All the suggested candidates before Mier were top people.

To: Bill who wrote (142898)	10/14/2005 12:45:08 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

Math is different that the other stuff. It requires different kinds of thinking. And the assumption a non math major in any school because of rank is better at math than a math degree candidate is ignorance. The simple reality is, I have read Souter and Ginsburg opinions and they were quite stupid. They reeked of some of the dumbest logic, if one can even call it that. If you need proof Ginsburg cannot add 2 + 2 read this. acute.ath.cx Gingsburg cannot visualise the recount would be by any tom dick and harry with no objective definition of what was an objective intent to vote in a specific way. And clearly in the Florida Courts, mr gore's, briefed with fraudulent data math PHD, and political scientist with zero technical background, did not establish any legal basis to do any recount as is quite clearly defined in Florida law. There was no technical equipment failure and no fraud.