Type 1 Diabetes: The complete medical record must be produced. Diabetes carries a high risk of mental illness, and of cognitive impairment. Republicans should demand that she have neuropsychological testing prior to her confirmation hearing.
Diabetes may defund the Supreme Court, a horrible agency of oppression. She should go for a pancreas transplant at a $ million. It usually requires a kidney transplant also. The meds add up to $100K a year. Her prolonged absences would have the Supreme Court at an even number, which is an excellent idea. I would enjoy seeing weasel, Justice Kennedy, go hat in hand to request supplemental funding for the Court from his dog masters, in the Congress. Chattel are subject to eminent domain. She should apply Kelo to a corpse, and take the organs. That would be a great application of Kelo. If someone questions it, such as CJ Roberts, sue him under the ADAA. Disability, as defined under the 2009 ADAA, should be added to the list of her entitled and lawyer privileged statuses.
Catholic Cardinal Spellman High School: She should have no trouble with the supernatural core doctrines of the law, taken from the Catechism. For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ, should give her no problem whatever.
Princeton University, Yale Law School: Absolute, automatic disqualifiers. All Ivy grads are Hate America freaks.
They should be excluded from all responsible government positions per se. I do not distinguish by political affiliation. They are all the same. They may have high IQ's, but all believe in growing government. None has common sense. And as far as the real world of people, they are grossly mentally retarded. Someone misled them into thinking their judgment is better than that of others. The government does nothing well because of their incompetence, and their running it. See the Presidents of the 20th Century, uninterrupted, unmitigated catastrophes for our nation.
Their educations and academic achievements are lesser than those of grads of the Big Ten. None has an original thought because they are book worms, and they had no real world responsibility. They hire away people who have achieved, and then they rot there. She may qualify as a law prof, however.
Divorce: Find the man that could live with this horrible person for more than a short time. Then, publicize the entire marriage and its dissolution. The Supremacy blog is trying to get a copy of the divorce record.
Horrible Bronx Accent, Horrible Bronx Attitudes: Racist. Politically Correct Abomination. Did I say, a Politically Correct Identity Politics Abomination, Personally Obnoxious, Bully, and Rude, Member of Racist Extremist Anti-American Organization. In the Bronx, jurors would rather see 100 guilty men go free than to accept the testimony of a police officer. Torts are a method of wealth transfer from the few productive entities there to lawyers, with some crumbs going to low ethics plaintiffs. That Bronx mentality will be forced on the nation now. A horrible, ungrateful, threatening complainer, a nightmare for our nation.
La Raza: The judge is a member of an organization that wants to forcefully return the Southwest to its owner, Mexico. It is a racist organization similar in its views to white supremacist organizations like the KKK.
SAFETY ON THE FLY – THE LESSONS OF ACCIDENTS
4 years ago
6 comments:
"For example, the fact that the Reasonable Person may be lawyer code for Jesus Christ"
Brilliant. Now why didn't I think of that.
Anon: Why must the Reasonable Person be a fictional character? If a juror reports thinking what his most sensible friend would do, or his experienced and wise aunt, a mistrial would be declared immediately. The Reasonable Person must be a fictional character. Why? To remain "objective."
Why on earth does that make any sense? You knew that, if you took 10th Grade World History or Western Civ 101. You studied the Scholaticism of the High Middle Ages and St. Thomas Aquinas. You learned that man's logic and intellect may be misled by the Fall from Eden and Original Sin. Man must rely on "Reason," to make good moral decisions. The most reliable source of Reason? The New Testament. "Reasonable" means, in accordance with the New Testament. The New Testament represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, who do you think the Reasonable Person is? Mickey Mouse, a prudent character?
If you went to law school, 1L cult indoctrination methods erased this from your memory. The indoctrination was so good, you did not even know it took place.
Under that thesis all thinking is fictional because it is all abstract and thus doesn't exist in material reality.
Actually, if you go back and look at Holmes his idea of a reasonable person was more akin to the statistical notion of the "average" man. And just as an average can represent none of the numbers that constitute the average, a reasonable person can exist in theory that never exist in material reality.
Does that make the reasonable person inherently unreasonable? Yes, if you deny the reality of thinking abstractly. But if abstract thinking is real, then so is the reasonable man.
I have always agreed with Holmes.
If the average man were the reasonable person, a survey could be taken. One could poll a valid sample about what they would do in the situation in dispute. The average or even most frequent answer would be 1) real world; 2)a good, valid standard; 3) not a violation of the Establishment Clause, coming from the wisdom of a living crowd, not from a fictional character. Even if the crowd is religious, that is still a set of real people. That is not currently permitted, and almost never happens in court.
However, that is an excellent remedy to this problem. A great proposal for a change in the Rules of Evidence, a crowd of real people must set the standard of due care for the reasonable person.
Example. In 2009, an adult calls another adult's mother a whore. The other punches the offender in the nose and breaks it. The one with th brken nose sues. The defense is that the reasonable person of today would do the same with such provocation. See with which side the majority agrees. The jury still decides but has objective data, not fiction for guidance.
In reference to your psyco drugs for our children.
Oh my God Supremacy Claus
100,000 Americans are killed each and every year by proper use of prescription drugs. The Pharmaceutical Industry is for profit ONLY, not for health. Are you an idiot to say psyco drugs should be FORCED on kids?
So you are really not understanding what is happening here? We take drugs to skirt the responsibility for our own health. We have epidemics of heart, cancer and diabetes and you think more drugs is the answer? You are stupid.
The most influence we can have on health is what we put in our mouths. Look at the CAUSE. Are we eating the highly addictive DRUG -sugar and other fake foods. Do you really think our bodies and minds can run on such crap? You and Big Pharma are setting up the kids for a lifetime of drug use. No matter what happens you take a drug. Sad. And we are dying here. We spend more on "healthcare" than any other nation on earth and we are the sickest!!! Can you and Big Pharma wrap your small selfish profit driven brains around that? The American Diabetes Asses state "the diabetic can eat sugar (the cause) just shoot up enough drugs". Criminal
Say NO to prescription drugs, they kill, and are mere profit to those who don't give a damn about health.
Stop forcing my kids to take your deadly toxic drugs for profit.
It is a new day and we put people first.
Bonnie: The Supremacy is a fictional character. He has never met your children, let alone forced them to take psyco drugs. Maybe you were thinking of his cousin, Santa. Perhaps, those kids of yours acted up or wet his suit, sitting on his lap.
So what do you think about the Reasonable Person standard being lawyer code for Jesus the Christ?
Post a Comment