It's quite amazing how it works They drop the clip and then all the trolls repost it with comments about unqualified 'diversity' candidates
What a sad, sad state of affairs...for you. You post another ridiculous irrelevant question by Senator Kennedy. As has been explained to you, Kennedy only does this for the sound bite and to make otherwise qualified individuals look foolish. In the end, your posting this crap just makes you look foolish, since it has no relevance to anything. The candidate is not a criminal attorney, nor is the candidate seeking a position as judge in the criminal division. As such, he probably has never been involved in a Brady motion. While it is surprising that he would not know what a Brady motion is (we all discuss the case in law school), again, there is no need for him to recall what a Brady Motion is. His response was perfectly appropriate. If confronted with the issue, he would act accordingly. Where he "stumbled" is saying it had something to do with the Second Amendment. Brady v. Maryland was about prosecutor not turning over exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial. The Brady doctrine is that prosecutors must turn over exculpatory evidence. This is not an issue for 95% of lawyers. In my 21 years in practice, I have never been involved in a Brady Disclosure, as I have never been involved in criminal law. It took me a couple of seconds to recall (since I had not heard the term since my first year of law school, in my Criminal Procedure/Adjudicative Process Course), but I remembered it after a minute or two. From an article on the subject of "stumbling" over one of Kennedy's stupid, irrelevant questions: Crews noted in his questionnaire answers the limited role magistrate judges play in criminal cases, which he said includes considering petitions for issuance of search warrants, conducting preliminary proceedings, and presiding over the trial and final disposition of misdemeanor cases. He was previously a founding partner of a small practice, where he focused on civil litigation and labor and employment law. “It’s certainly possible that he never saw a Brady question,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “It may be asking too much to expect him to be intimately familiar with that.” https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...cial-nominee-stumbles-at-confirmation-hearing You can go back under your rock now.
The first one was even more brazen, more stupid and less relevant than this one. At least this had something to do with court procedure (well, criminal procedure).
the only reason I remember what it is was that it came up in a trial I was following. otherwise I’d just look it up like normal people.
I know this stupid Kennedy cracker has his teeth. But like someone at a roast said to Chris Redd about having a mouth that always looks like he has braces on, dude looks like he has no teeth.
Rat Phuckers will also rat phuck. Think about how I'm the trump it proves people who have never tried cases and were actually given bad reports by the American bar association. They like to get these little video clips of people when they ask them preposterous questions to try and get a gotcha so they can be on Fox or tweet it out and leave out the key part.
It's pure theatre to launch bigoted attacks on POC and women Obviously if the senator was doing his job properly, he would ask the candidate about his actual career and the types of cases he'd be likely to handle
That makes too much sense. You've got a person who's done civil law for 30 years but then you want to ask him a very specific criminal law statute. It's like asking a Rabbi question about the Quran.
It's yet another example of how a US Senator thinks his job is to create rage click content for social media But you see how effectively it works
This is only "effective" because ignorant people trumpet it out as if it is "proof" of something. It is not going to defeat the nomination.
Yes, and therein lies the problem. Even knocking down the ridiculous talking point means fostering the topic and may contribute to the spread of the infection. This is my issue with discussing Fox News, for example. They have a large audience, but no more than 5% of the American public. However, each awful thing they say gets magnified through dissemination by other media, and their influence grows exponentially.
Here's one: Biden’s Team Is Dangerously Messing in Bosnia’s Politics While you could argue this is specifically a Biden administration failure, the fact that it's built upon an unfortunate legacy of the Clinton administration--and that Democrats in general don't seem to see the problem--is why I put it here.
Hawkeyes to receive participation trophies. After watching the women's NCAA basketball championship from the stands, Jill Biden says she wants Caitlin Clark and Iowa to join victorious LSU at the White House. https://t.co/eBxhab7jzN— The Associated Press (@AP) April 3, 2023
A thoughtless and graceless suggestion which would/will if adopted make an awkward and ugly situation even more awkward and ugly. They got beat. Fairly soundly. They don't get a share of the brass ring because some of the winners were rather nasty about them falling short. Troop LSU through the White House, shake their hands and congratulate them, and let us forget them for few years-- but let us not pretend that the white women "should have" beaten the black women just because we sort of wanted them to and the officiating could have been a lot better. In time we'll be able to respect the ring and forget the misuse of the finger it is on.
Ayrton Senna is said to have said that "the winner is the first loser". I'm still stunned that Americans treat runner-ups so badly.
So…Sinema deserves a spot in the Dem failure thread….for the Dems failing to vet the candidates they support. She wasn’t a Dem…her political career began with Nader…she moved on only when she realized that the Green Party isn’t a real thing. So I’m not sure this really belongs here….but better than dumping it in the tweet thread. NEW: North Carolina Rep. Tricia Cotham, who won election to a deep-blue Charlotte-area seat as a Democrat just five months ago, changed parties Tuesday — a move that gives Republicans a veto-proof majority. Cotham is a traitor to democracy. pic.twitter.com/F7dB0s31Tt— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) April 5, 2023 This woman has been an elected Dem for over a decade I believe. Her own mother is heavily involved in the NC Dem party….and was a Dem representative herself. WTF happened here? @superdave …any insight into this?
I don’t know much about the situation except this seems more flaky than ideological. This is Ben Nighthorse Campbell switching parties, not Phil Gramm switching parties. She’s in a very safe Democratic district, so she’s toast. What does this sentence mean? I honestly don’t know. my first question is, what do you mean by “Dems?” Do you mean voters or party leaders? And once you’ve told us WHO you’re talking about, what exactly should they have done that they didn’t do?