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: Lane3 who wrote (67478)	5/21/2008 3:53:30 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 540922

<<<I'm not sure, though, that she couldn't be a good justice. She would likely lose the partisanship when she put on the robe. Different role, and all that, and she has that perfectionism that would likely make her want to be the best justice she could be, not some hack.>>> Now I know why I have always thought highly of you even though I almost always disagree with you.<lol>

To: Lane3 who wrote (67478)	5/21/2008 4:09:23 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540922

The trouble is that she has no track record as a jurist, so talk about taking a gamble...(isn't that the argument everyone keeps using against Obama?) Maybe the correct word isn't partisan so much as ideological. The justices we have, who have had years of judicial experience studying and applying the law, have certainly been accused of handing down decisions favoring certain ideas. But at least during their confirmations there was a track record to look at. Nope. I think Hillary is a brilliant woman, competent, rational, but that doesn't mean you gamble on her in a completely new and unproven field like the SC, which is a lifetime appointment. Let her earn some stripes at a lower level if she really wants to show she can be a jurist.