Ketanji Brown Jackson

Sure it was evasive. Because she refused to play in the mud, where the Right-wing crazies beckoned her to play. Jackson knew the question was coming, but she wasn't going to dignify it. You guys don't understand that concept. It is above your intellectual grasp, apparently.

Sure it was evasive. Because she refused to play in the mud, where the Right-wing crazies beckoned her to play. Jackson knew the question was coming, but she wasn't going to dignify it. You guys don't understand that concept. It is above your intellectual grasp, apparently. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

like the left making baseless false accusations about Kavanaugh being a "college frat party rapist"? or was that a "high school beer binge party"? i get confused on that.

oh snap! did that actually happen?


yes it did

like the left making baseless false accusations about Kavanaugh being a "college frat party rapist"?

oh snap! did that actually happen?


yes it did Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yes it did. Are you in the two wrongs make a right camp?

Yes it did. Are you in the two wrongs make a right camp? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

No. Yes.

the right should have stolen a page from the radical left and "made up" a smear campaign against this woke radical racist.

i'd rather have a drunk frat boy and a catholic chick on the court rather than a "constitutional revisionist"

how about you? is the Constitution a "living document" or a "text as written" basis for democracy?


so which is it? original intent or revisionist history?

how about you? is the Constitution a "living document" or a "text as written" basis for democracy?


so which is it? original intent or revisionist history? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Why is it that I suspect with "Tran" (interesting Woke-Name) that .....

.... "it depends" on whether it's his ass on the line?

He'll probably even want bail.

No. Yes.

the right should have stolen a page from the radical left and "made up" a smear campaign against this woke radical racist.

i'd rather have a drunk frat boy and a catholic chick on the court rather than a "constitutional revisionist"

how about you? is the Constitution a "living document" or a "text as written" basis for democracy?


so which is it? original intent or revisionist history? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You mean like you do?

#5 - Membership here is entirely anonymous and for the privacy of our members it will remain that way. That means any effort or attempt to connect a person's real world information to their username on this board or elsewhere will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. This includes real first or last names, employment, medical info, addresses past or present, images, criminal or driving record, etc. We expect everyone who participates here to respect and go to great lengths to protect the anonymity and privacy of one another. Reckless disregard or accidental outing will also be taken very seriously, as will posts deemed by staff to be a 'threat of outing'. In other words, posts which simply imply knowledge of personal details beyond one's public fictional persona or what has been revealed in writing on this board will be dealt with using the same strong measures as actual outing of one's personal information.

Like I said ... you don't know me. You pretend to. That's you!

You probably don't even stop at stop signs!

Struggle, but try, to look at your circumstance this way: Over the years of my posting on Eccie there have been numerous posters who wished I weren't posting so they resorted to suggesting real world information about me on the boards and fabricated remarks about me to discourage me from posting. Rather than attempt to effectively dispute what I post they attack me personally, as you have done. Doesn't work, junior.

And lying about me is your problem, not mine. Seems like you're "practicing" law now.

When did you get your law license? And when did you graduate from law school? Who's "angry"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

In a thread like this you, and Blackman, are accorded more respect in part because you have said or at least strongly implied that you have a background in the law. You can't have it both ways, that is, expect eccieuser to ignore what you've said about your legal background, at the same time you criticize him for challenging you because he doesn't have a law license and didn't graduate from law school.

https://www.eccie.net/member.php?u=1...=eccie_reviews

46 crimes and you want to lecture me? Are you a "practicing" criminal?

I've yet to see a traffic code that suspends stop signs based on the hours of the day.

Like said: Who is "practicing" law on here?

Get a life, junior. You're out of your league. A criminal lecturing about "ethics"!!!!

You're a joke! Originally Posted by LexusLover

This one looks like it's below the belt too. This is a hooker board. Eccieuser's "crimes" are apparently 46 reviews on a hooker board. And failing to stop at stop signs. If you have a problem with prostitution why are you posting on this board?

Time will tell. The environment in which she will be working may temper her attitude and perception to a less liberal point of view. Hopefully, unlike Sotomayer recently, she will be factually honest in her presentations on the bench. Originally Posted by LexusLover

OK, getting back to something substantive, and in view of the fact that you, like Blackman, are one of the recognized experts in this forum on the law, could you expand on this. I see that American Hero Paul Ryan has praised Ketanji Brown Jackson. This is undoubtedly partly because they're relatives. But also they share an interest in criminal justice reform, that is, not locking people up and throwing away the key. People who are redeemable. I like that about her.

What I dislike is that in matters where government is up against business, she mostly takes the side of government.

I'm no expert, like you, but suspect and hope you're right. Would I have rather seen another person like Gorsuch on the Court, who's more libertarian leaning? Hell yeah. But given that she's replacing Stephen Breyer, it's not the end of the world. That's my layman's opinion anyway.

OK, getting back to something substantive, and in view of the fact that you, like Blackman, are one of the recognized experts in this forum on the law, could you expand on this. I see that American Hero Paul Ryan has praised Ketanji Brown Jackson. This is undoubtedly partly because they're relatives. But also they share an interest in criminal justice reform, that is, not locking people up and throwing away the key. People who are redeemable. I like that about her.

What I dislike is that in matters where government is up against business, she mostly takes the side of government.

I'm no expert, like you, but suspect and hope you're right. Would I have rather seen another person like Gorsuch on the Court, who's more libertarian leaning? Hell yeah. But given that she's replacing Stephen Breyer, it's not the end of the world. That's my layman's opinion anyway. Originally Posted by Tiny

So she's all about "Criminal Justice Reform", that's nice. Have any idea what her views on "Criminal Justice Reform" are besides not locking people up?

So she's all about "Criminal Justice Reform", that's nice. Have any idea what her views on "Criminal Justice Reform" are besides not locking people up? Originally Posted by Levianon17

I haven't read that much about her. Maybe you could enlighten us?

... because you have said or at least strongly implied that you have a background in the law. Originally Posted by Tiny

... and not long ago that got me "tagged" as being a cop!

So? Let me repeat the rule again ...

#5 - Membership here is entirely anonymous and for the privacy of our members it will remain that way. That means any effort or attempt to connect a person's real world information to their username on this board or elsewhere will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. This includes real first or last names, employment, medical info, addresses past or present, images, criminal or driving record, etc. We expect everyone who participates here to respect and go to great lengths to protect the anonymity and privacy of one another. Reckless disregard or accidental outing will also be taken very seriously, as will posts deemed by staff to be a 'threat of outing'. In other words, posts which simply imply knowledge of personal details beyond one's public fictional persona or what has been revealed in writing on this board will be dealt with using the same strong measures as actual outing of one's personal information.

FYI: Just because someone posts "legal" documents and/or makes comments extracted from "legal" articles is not an open door to start making ignorant remarks like .... someone is "disbarred"!

I have NEVER discussed or "implied" my activities with respect to "gainful" employment and/or profession. Nor have I discussed specific schools and/or professional licenses and/or authorizations.

My point is valid: Someone bragging about sex for money (even on a hooker board) attacking another poster's "ethics"???? Tiny, quit trying to justify the unjustifiable.

FYI: At least one other poster on Eccie (actually more than one) have "suggested" they know personal information about me openly in posts ... they do that for what reason? Intimidation? Attempting to get me to quit posting? One with a marginal ability to invoke cognitive evaluations might realize that with my posting count that "routine" and/or strategy DOESN'T WORK, putting aside the obvious rule violation and the ultimate basis for the anonymity of having "handles" and "rules." But like I said: If you don't know what "STOP" means then Rule #5 is a bit long for a clear understanding!!!!

Now you know a good reason for me not doing reviews.

That's what was so ridiculous about the appointees ... "I don't know what is a "woman" remark"!!!! (paraphrase). I am not a biologist, but I know what is a female aka "woman"!

And it doesn't take a lawyer to know that that sign "STOP" means!

Sure it was evasive. Because she refused to play in the mud, .... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

... I pass on exactly how you know what "she" was thinking .... and/or her strategy for claiming "she" didn't know what is a "woman" .....

... but putting Bitten's bullshit back on him ... he wanted a "Black female" nominee ... so no one should have voted "yes," because "she" doesn't know if "she" is a "female," so "she" was (and is) not qualified to meet Bitten's standards for the job.

Or did "she" lift her skirt or drop her pants to let him see?

If so ... the entire Senate should have been given proof.

I haven't read that much about her. Maybe you could enlighten us? Originally Posted by Tiny

Well read up on her and while you're at it read up on what the basic premise of Criminal Justice reform is.

You can't have it both ways, that is, [and] expect eccieuser (in the "average user" sense) to ignore what you've said about your legal background, at the same time you criticize him for challenging you because he doesn't have a law license and didn't graduate from law school.



This one looks like it's below the belt too. This is a hooker board. Eccieuser's [referring directly to me] "crimes" are apparently 46 reviews on a hooker board. And failing to stop at stop signs. Originally Posted by Tiny

... and not long ago that got me "tagged" as being a cop!

So? Let me repeat the rule again ...



FYI: Just because someone posts "legal" documents and/or makes comments extracted from "legal" articles is not an open door to start making ignorant remarks like .... someone is "disbarred"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why not?


Essay on Poets are the Unacknowledged Legislators in the World


https://gkscientist.com/poets-are-th...-in-the-world/

The poet excites the emotions of his readers. Heart speaks to the heart. The poet needs no public votes. He is the self-appointed spokesman of the people. The Poetess, Mrs Elizabeth Barret Browning, wrote the poem The Cry of Children. It had such a tremendous influence on people’s minds that Lord Peel’s ministry passed legislation to ban the employment of small children in factories under certain conditions. The legislator follows the poet.