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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (131470)	8/4/2019 11:44:27 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 354060

>> That transaction was asymmetrical. Obama offered a candidate that should have been acceptable to R's, would normally have been acceptable to R's, not some screaming lefty. McConnell should have been equally graceful. Instead, he chose the nuclear option. Perhaps Garland "should have been" acceptable. But the Court is more partisan today than at any time in history -- predominantly because of the leftist women who pretty consistently vote based on their political views. The right-leaning justices -- other than Thomas, are far less reliable for the right. It was perceived that you would have been changing the tilt of the Court pretty substantially and I believe that was a fair conclusion. And there was certainly a concern that HRC was going to be the next president and would have the opportunity to pack the court with leftists. I think Garland would make a fine justice. But it just was not his time. If Ginsberg retired today I think he would be a fine appointment. Doubt it would happen, but he was a good choice for a different time.