I couldn’t agree with you more. She tried her best to derail this nomination.
She is not relevant. There is a much bigger picture here that needs to be addressed.
Oh look at you, using a dictionary! You missed the part though where words have multiple meanings.
You’re pointing at meaning (1), while Trump and his right-wing subs here were using the word “discredited” as meaning (2) - to “cause disbelief …”. Which means to cause through contradictory evidence. That hasn’t happened - there’s been no contradictory evidence. No person has said “it didn’t happen, and here’s why I know that, and here’s the evidence for why I know that.” THAT would be meaning (2) discrediting, and that hasn’t happened.
I’m not claiming to be unbiased, nor is my job depending on if. Supreme Court justices on the other hand.
Kavanaugh has been a Judge for 12 years. Surely you can point to at least one case in which his ruling showed political bias.
On the other hand, your statement “There are no quality people in the current administration …” shows considerable bias.
Yes, I am biased. I’m not the topic.
How very convenient for you.
But it doesn’t change your abundance of gall.
You are holding on to the notion that it was a false allegation. Right wing propaganda has done a great job the past week denigrating this woman and you have proudly taken your seat on the bandwagon.
You confused my post which was saying that the person you were debating was moving the goal posts. I’m on your side.
I couldn’t have made my post clearer I think.
I said I bet you did. A guess. No forked tongue at all.
Better luck next time.
Can you blame him?
Oh come on.
You see what I’m doing I hope. I am playing the opposite of the trumpers who are shamelessly denigrating Ford. Fighting a little fire with fire.
I really don’t think he is the right pick though.
Why is it that no one here understands what “criminal negligence” actually means?
Hint: Not this.
They think the final Seinfeld episode with the “Good Samaritan Law” was real?
There is such thing as a “good samaritan” law - but it doesn’t mean what it did in that Seinfeld episode.
Good Samaritan laws protect people who do choose to help from tort liability - for example, if you see someone choking and give them the heimlich maneuver, they can’t then sue you for breaking one of their ribs in the process.
Except in very specific situations, criminal law does not ever require affirmative acts to help someone else.
thanks for the info
We are all biased. Including the Nonumvirate.
While you are correct, there are 10 states with laws requiring some form of action, and they too are called Good Samaritan Laws.
Do you have an example?
Not to say that I dont believe you. But I’d love to read the statute.