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 (64301)	5/8/2008 12:13:23 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 543190

It might be clearer, but even given that, 12 (1 actually recused) "neutral" out of 15 hardly equates with "massively unqualified". There is probably a bit of hyperbole with that phrase, but if you are using the ABA as your guidepost, I think it is fair to say that he didnt measure up to the standards of the Supreme Court. I probably wouldnt add the word "massive" to the description, but I would say he shouldnt have been nominated for the SC....and unless we really want to argue over definitions, I think that is all that really matters. I just want to say again that my above comments are assuming that the ABA is a neutral body with some ability to measure the qualifications for the SC. Slacker