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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (64034)	5/7/2008 2:18:20 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543149

>>We could debate Bork, though it's well past the point of doing so. But Thomas was massively unqualified for the court. As I'm typing this, I'm trying to think back over the last twenty years or so of SC nominees. I can't think of a one that gets even close in terms of lack of qualification. << John - I guess you've already forgotten Harriet Miers. - Allen

To: JohnM who wrote (64034)	5/7/2008 5:56:31 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543149

But Thomas was massively unqualified for the court. John, when I read that I did a little checking to find out what the American Bar Association rating was for Justice Thomas. I assume this rating was done at the time he became a nominee. This is what I found at a blog: ===================================================== While most recent Supreme Court nominees have been deemed "well-qualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA), the rating for Judge Thomas was split between "qualified" and "not qualified." " Clarence Thomas, picked by Bush's father in 1991, received the lesser "qualified" rating. Two committee members voted to give Thomas a "not qualified" designation." "The ABA scrutiny does not deal with ideology. It involves three areas that relate to fitness to be a judge: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. A 15-member ABA committee handles the work, including a review of opinions and legal briefs. The committee ratings are well qualified, qualified and not qualified." ====================================================== So, 13 committee members voted him "qualified"; 2 voted him "not qualified"; none voted him "well-qualified". So, when comparing his rating with other SC nominees, most of whom according to this record are rated "well-qualified", his relative rating is, IMO, poor. I admit I was disappointed. And I can see why you might feel as you do. Nevertheless, apparently 13 of 15 committee members disagreed with your assessment, which thus appears to me to be a little extreme.