Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Royalty doesn't answer questions.....I learned that in a Shakespeare course.Right, you like to ask questions but not so good at answering them.
pknopp said:
I'm not a Democrat but that is all you have because you can't own up to the idea that you support the very thing you pretend to be against.
On second thought:
It is true that we have butt loads of judges who are “anti” crime. Pretty cliche. Right?
Maybe Brandon’s brain is guilty of actually having a thought. (I know. I have my doubts, too. Maybe one of his bosses had the “thought” and gave a directive to the President).
So, the geniuses who tell the President what to think and what to say and what to do maybe had a sudden flash of “insight”’and decided, “Hey. What if we balance things? Maybe we should have a few PRO CRIME judges.”
Always at the ready to add something not actually under discussion (with some definitions thrown in), ladies and gentlemen, HEEEEREEEEE’s little surada.Pro-crime?
What Is Social Justice? | Define And Practice | Pachamama ...
Social justice is the equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. A Brief History of Social Justice. Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during theWhat is Social Justice?
Social justice is the equitable access to wealth, opportunities, rights, and privileges within a society.www.pachamama.org
Always at the ready to add something not actually under discussion (with some definitions thrown in), ladies and gentlemen, HEEEEREEEEE’s little surada.
Always at the ready to add something not actually under discussion (with some definitions thrown in), ladies and gentlemen, HEEEEREEEEE’s little surada.
“‘Do you believe that a criminal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?’ Kennedy asked.”
Here’s the thing. Whatever definition one chooses for “social justice,” is only significant to the extent that it tells one that forgiving defendants for crimes is required.
Gee. Here is a thought. And of course I’m just spit balling here: wouldn’t it be reasonable for a nominee to a judicial bench be at least a little opposed to criminality?
I’m all for good definitions. Always have been. But the question is kind of irrelvant. Unless you think that the meaning of “social justice” requires that a judge shrug off crimes.Skeered to define your terms? Much better to be vague as hell.. Pro crime?LOLOLOL
Then it would have been so easy for the nominee to say "No".“Do you believe that a criminal act should be forgiven in the name of social justice?” Kennedy asked.
What an idiotic question.
This thread isn't about Trump. So run along.So interesting how Trump and his Cult claim to love law and order, the police and all law enforcement personnel. But, when it comes to trying to take over the government on January 6 and protesting against COURTS OF LAW including the SCOTUS that refused to overturn a valid Presidential election, they accept and fully support the lawless efforts of Trump and his minions. They don't mind breaking the law and subverting the Constitution if it benefits their Messiah! Bigly!!!
Don't project your moral, ethical, emotional, and intellectual failings on others.We are all Socialists.
Then it would have been so easy for the nominee to say "No".
Yet that didn't happen.
Ask yourself why.
It's a simple question. You're too afraid to answer it, just like the nominee.Its a very convoluted question.. What does a criminal act have to do with social justice?
Also, if the nominee had any wit, the reply could be: “it isn’t up to a judge to ‘forgive’ whether it is in the name of ‘Social Justice’ or for any other social cause. But, Senator Kennedy, if you are asking whether a person charged with murder should have a case dismissed because of a clamor for ‘social justice’ then I would have to say, ‘no.’”What is so hard to simply say no?
It's a simple question. You're too afraid to answer it, just like the nominee.
That’s another stupid answer. Whether a criminal case should be “forgiven” or “dismissed” in the name of Social Justice is the question. Any worthwhile judicial nominee could have easily fielded that question even if it required getting it “clarified” first.It's a trick question.. a crime has nothing to do with social justice.
That’s another stupid answer. Whether a criminal case should be “forgiven” or “dismissed” in the name of Social Justice is the question. Any worthwhile judicial nominee could have easily fielded that question even if it required getting it “clarified” first.
If you were the judicial nominee, and thought that your above inquiry needed to be addressed before you could fairly answer the Senator’s question, you could — you know — ASK the Senator to clarify it. As a judicial nominee, you really shouldn’t just refuse to answer.What does one have to do with the other?
