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: Bridge Player who wrote (64294)	5/7/2008 11:41:37 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543175

Edit: I simply can't argue with that logic. You edited out the logic and left only the assertion. You might wish to take a careful look at the argument. And lean back and talk about the issue. Confrontation is not a way to have a discussion. Only a way to have a food fight.

To: Bridge Player who wrote (64294)	5/7/2008 11:45:13 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543175

John says: But Thomas was massively unqualified for the court. ABA says by 12-2 (turns out 1 member recused): qualified. John says: Actually, it looks entirely commensurate with my judgment. Unbelievable. Edit: I simply can't argue with that logic. Actually, I think John is on faily solid ground. There are only 3 categories and the last 4 Supreme Court nominees (2 by Bush and 2 by Clinton) received unaninomous votes as "well qualified". The fact that none of the 15 voted for Thomas as well qualified and 2 actually voted for him as non-qualified means that he falls well short of the others on the bench. Grade inflation can happen even outside of school and that looks like exactly what has happened here. It would be much clearer if the 3 categories were "support", "neutral", and "oppose". Slacker