- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes, and those grand jury's may indict a ham sandwich.
Glad to see you on that side of that one.
Another red herring. The lawyer is on a roll tonight!
What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing? And my "understanding about this matter" is sufficient to recognize this as a BS argument:
1. She got every job over her entire "40 year" career "solely" due to her race.
2. We know that because she is black.
So far that's the entirety of your 'case' against Ms. Lynch. We have had several interesting but irrelevant diversions into affirmative action, your law school chums, made up stats, Michelle Obama, etc.
Clearly? Based on what evidence except she's black, of course....
that's a bit of an exaggeration and in a civil forfeiture-there is no involvement of a grand jury
Well there most certainly is in the federal grand jury in the eastern district of Oklahoma, I recently completed an 18 month duty in which we deliberated several.
I don't think one can be a libertarian and support the federal war on drugs
that would be criminal forfeiture where property is listed on an indictment
Not civil forfeiture
I should note that sometimes an AUSA seeks a criminal forfeiture and when the GJ won't include that in a bill, the AUSA then pursues a civil forfeiture so you might have considered a matter which ended up a civil forfeiture
Two such in my recollection, out of more than a hundred cases heard in that time.
I see none of the Obama fan boys on this thread want to deal with this question
DOES ANYONE BELIEVE that these two successive black appointees to the AG office were the best and the brightest attorneys Obama could find in the Department of Justice?
... probably because no one ever gave a satisfactory answer to the equivalent question about Gonzales and Clarence Thomas.
Seriously Turtle? Why are you boring us with this disingenuous question. You know that Presidential appointments are rarely about the best and the brightest, nor should they be. Any good administrator needs a competent manager and technician that believes in the mission and can work well with the boss. The Boss gets to pick his lieutenants.
The advice and consent role of the Senate is a veto on the nominee (do they fit the competency and fit for office standard). Obama's AG nominees clearly meet this standard.
As to competency, however, many of continue to ask that question about Clarence Thomas. Perhaps once you justify him do you have any basis to challenge Holder or Lynch.
yeah she got those jobs because she was black
and since you spend so much time mentioning I am a lawyer, I am going to note your lack of a law degree and experience in the legal profession is probably the excuse for your inaccurate comments
2. And you know that because she's black.
Yes, I know that's the extent of your 'case.' It's still a crap argument. The only way it makes sense is if we assume that a black woman cannot rise to those posts on her own merit. If you want to assert THAT, then you should do so. It won't improve the argument any, but at least we'll all know how you draw your conclusions.
Yes, you made that disappointingly weak point in the previous post. So I'll ask again, "What does that have to do with anything other than you got nothing?"
If readers need some inside knowledge about how it works in the legal world, where black women only rise to power based on AA, seems to me you should provide that background information for us. Tell us how it works. Can't wait!
isn't it just as lame to assume that she got those jobs on credentials? I remember dealing with a black female higher up in justice who was a complete idiot and when I mentioned that to a very well respected federal judge he noted
She acts that way because she thinks she got that appointment from Clinton (in reality the democrat senators) in spite of being black and female when in reality she got the job because she was black and female
you don't seem to get the point. She got into Harvard on affirmative action, she got into the law school on affirmative action and with those credentials she got the jobs
Really, many off them do have their knickers in a knot about it.
Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform | U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg
Lets put it this way... as soon as they actually pass a reform that actually reforms the process in all states.. then well it is nothing but hot air.
I guess you cannot figure out that TOP means the ranking prosecutor not the BEST prosecutor
I see none of the Obama fan boys on this thread want to deal with this question
DOES ANYONE BELIEVE that these two successive black appointees to the AG office were the best and the brightest attorneys Obama could find in the Department of Justice?
If a white president appointed successive white appointees would you be crying racism?
They were completely qualified candidates. The majority of his cabinet and appointed positions are white. But he's had two black in a row in one position? Well that just doesn't sit well with TD.That spot should be given to a white person. Because that's whats right.
If anyone is curious as to why sometimes republicans get labeled racist, have a good read through of this thread.
As usual your posts don't understand the difference. AA is based on race which violates title VII. programs that give jocks, chess masters, ballerinas or rich kids who fund the education of other kids breaks do not.
OK, so your assumption really is a black woman cannot succeed on her merits. At least we've finally arrived at your baseline viewpoint.
BTW, I can't believe you're willing to put such terrible arguments in writing - you once knew a black female who was a complete idiot, so that means Lynch is also a complete idiot because, you know, Lynch is also black and a woman, and they're all the same..... Seriously? You can't believe that's an argument anyone serious will accept do you?
And, no, it's not "lame" to assume that people with a long and accomplished career are competent and rose to those positions based on their merit.
She graduated from law school in 1984. She has a 30 year career after that, TD. Unless you have some information you're not telling us, assuming that after a 10 year career in the U.S. Attorney's office, the last two as the U.S. Attorney, she (for example) was signed on as partner at a major law firm in D.C. and remained there for a decade as partner "solely" on the basis of her diploma hanging on the wall is, well, racist.
she was, Lynch was not. read what I saidYou pointed out that your friend was the "top" prosecuting attorney in her area, and so was Loretta Lynch.
So far you haven't given a single reason as to why she was a bad pick other than that you personally think she was an affirmative action hire.
But you've lumped in programs that provide preferential admissions to students based on merit - jocks, chess masters - with those based on a rich daddy. They really aren't remotely comparable.
you don't seem to get the point. She got into Harvard on affirmative action, she got into the law school on affirmative action and with those credentials she got the jobs
THe jock and I were both legacies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?