Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
she should have bought herself an AK47
and that makes it perfectly legal for her to break into his house and steal his guns?
Nice to see you’re a big fan of protecting life now.
sturg33
I
I'm just gonna guess that she wont be deemed as credible
Incredible that those peddling this nonsense will just ignore this.
This is so obviously a partisan hit job to influence a roe v wade decision. That is all this is and they ran a good mans name through the mud.
Ford was lying from the beginning.
Runnin
Well-known member
One of her close friends not believing the story proves only that one of her close friends doesn't believe the story. Meaning, zero. It's VERY common for people in those kinds of situations to not tell anyone for decades, in fact, that's usually the case.
But I can see how one could put himself through the mental gymnastics it takes to continually make excuses for liars, crooks and sex abusers. If you buy into the original bill of goods, no matter how big of a lie it is, the rest comes easy.
You have to admit there is a clear pattern of the kind of man Trump murderers, rapists, crooks and despots.
Last edited:
Ford named this women as a key witness.
The witness not only stated she didn't remember the said event - she went out of way to say it was effectively bull****. Then, to top it off, other allies of Ford threatened her to change the story.
HOW DOES ANY OF THIS NOT CONCERN YOU?
Runnin
Well-known member
That could be seen as Ford's friend refusing to get involved and tell what she knew. It doesn't concern me so much except that a guy I really don't like was put on the Supreme Court in a much less than fair democratic process. That concerns me. You?
What about the fact that Kav's friend, Mark Judge, went into hiding and was allowed to not be put under oath himself. Does that mean anything?
sturg33
I
I'm quite sure Ford herself could admit the story is bull**** and you would use that as proof of the rape being real and her denial is just the patriarchy at work.
You've lost it. Seek help. While the orange man is bad, he shouldnt affect you as much as he does
Runnin
Well-known member
I'll wait for Ford to admit that she made the whole thing up and flew to Washington as part of her fantasy to humiliate herself in front of the world on TV. That it is a result of her victim mentality, really just part of being a penis-envying woman. Yes, I see that I was wrong to think otherwise.
Those other complaints about Kavanaugh?
Runnin
Well-known member
I'm beginning to think your right about this. Clearly, somebody within the Democratic party with the help of Calf. (liberal state) congresswoman Anna Eshoo hatched this wild idea. Maybe even Dr. Christine Blasey Ford herself volunteered for the "partisan hit job" when she realized that she grew up near Kavanaugh and ran with some of the same people. Liberal abortion-loving women are so devious and of course, their all born actors anyway.
Is this sorta what you thinking? Btw, whoever trained her to pass the polygraph must have done a really good job, but lying comes easy to baby-killing libtard lezbos, right?
Last edited:
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Exactly - Do some soul searching that one person did this much damage to you.
If you don't see what Fords key witness as damning to the whole case then there is no helping you
Runnin
Well-known member
Soul searching, yes.
It seems like if the Dems were going to go to all the trouble to plant this story, they'd make sure they had plenty of corroborating witnesses.
These libtards are not good a dirty politics.
Can't buy everyone - They tried with Leland Keyser and it didn't work.
Some people have principles.
Again: I'll post this to see if anyone wants to actually comment:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51883/cbs-real-bombshell-kavanaugh-fords-allies-james-barrett
The long-time "close friend" of Christine Blasey Ford, who Ford named as a potential witness to the alleged sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh back in high school, not only says she does not believe Ford's accusation, but told the FBI that allies of Ford threatened her with a smear campaign to change her story.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51883/cbs-real-bombshell-kavanaugh-fords-allies-james-barrett
The long-time "close friend" of Christine Blasey Ford, who Ford named as a potential witness to the alleged sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh back in high school, not only says she does not believe Ford's accusation, but told the FBI that allies of Ford threatened her with a smear campaign to change her story.
striker42
Well-known member
Big day at the SCOTUS with two noteworthy oral arguments occurring. The first is two cases combined into one oral argument. The first case is a man suing Clayton County Georgia claiming he was fired from his county job because of his sexual orientation (a fact Clayton County disputes but this is a case dealing with whether he's stated a cause of action, there would need to be a trial if he prevails to determine whether his termination was legitimate). The other is a case where a skydiving instructor claims to have been fired for being gay. The main question in both is whether Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination "because of sex" covers sexual orientation.
The Clayton County case could conceivably also have equal protection implications as it's a government actor that's the defendant but I don't know if the plaintiff raised that question on appeal.
The other oral argument is on a case where a transgender individual was fired for not conforming to a dress code at work. The question here is slightly different. In past cases, the court has held that sex stereotyping can violate Title VII. They've also held that different dress codes for men and women are allowed. So the question is whether the ban on sex stereotyping applies to a biological male who identifies as a woman and wants to comply with the women's dress code.
I think the biggest obstacle for these cases it he fact that there are 5 members of the court who tend more towards a strict reading of statutes. The statute says discrimination because of sex and I expect they'll define sex fairly narrowly. It's possible you'll see one of the 5 conservatives break rank but I don't think it's quite as likely here because they have the cover of blaming Congress. They can say that it's not their job to rewrite statutes and that if Congress wants to add other classes to that statutes, they're more than capable.
The Clayton County case could conceivably also have equal protection implications as it's a government actor that's the defendant but I don't know if the plaintiff raised that question on appeal.
The other oral argument is on a case where a transgender individual was fired for not conforming to a dress code at work. The question here is slightly different. In past cases, the court has held that sex stereotyping can violate Title VII. They've also held that different dress codes for men and women are allowed. So the question is whether the ban on sex stereotyping applies to a biological male who identifies as a woman and wants to comply with the women's dress code.
I think the biggest obstacle for these cases it he fact that there are 5 members of the court who tend more towards a strict reading of statutes. The statute says discrimination because of sex and I expect they'll define sex fairly narrowly. It's possible you'll see one of the 5 conservatives break rank but I don't think it's quite as likely here because they have the cover of blaming Congress. They can say that it's not their job to rewrite statutes and that if Congress wants to add other classes to that statutes, they're more than capable.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
So you are against threatening people to change their story? Good to know. What do you think Trumps threats to the whistleblower is meant to do?
What's you posted about Ford's friend is how SJW operate. Look up what's happening with voice actor Vic Mignoga. Other voice actors are getting blacklisted if they dont lie about the guy.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-ra...ring-case-pamphlets-shared-at-courthouse.html
Here is a case I have had a lot of interest in. This guy was convicted of jury tampering for passing out pamphlets about jury nullification outside a courthouse.
I encourage everyone to read up on jury nullification and tell everyone you know. You have a right to vote your conciense and has been used many times throughout our history.
The most recent highly publicized use of this was in the Bundy trial. The government was holding a kangaroo court where they wouldn't even let the defendants testify. The judge literally ordered one defendant to shut up and kicked him off the witness stand. The jury saw through this **** and voted their conciense.
Here is a case I have had a lot of interest in. This guy was convicted of jury tampering for passing out pamphlets about jury nullification outside a courthouse.
I encourage everyone to read up on jury nullification and tell everyone you know. You have a right to vote your conciense and has been used many times throughout our history.
The most recent highly publicized use of this was in the Bundy trial. The government was holding a kangaroo court where they wouldn't even let the defendants testify. The judge literally ordered one defendant to shut up and kicked him off the witness stand. The jury saw through this **** and voted their conciense.