KUNTANJI
WHEN BIG FIRMS REPRESENTED AL QAEDA TERRORISTS, we were told that everyone has a right to representation.
Yet big firms were bullied into dropping Trump as a client, none of them appear to be offering pro bono representation to the January 6 defendants, and now we see this: Harvard, Yale, And Stanford Law Students And Faculty Pressure U.S. Law Firms To Cut Ties With Russian Clients.
So given that lawyers apparently are morally responsible for their choice of clients, I think it’s fair to criticize Ketanji Brown Jackson for representating accused terrorists.
AND FOR OPENING UP NEW PATHWAYS FOR CHILD PORN LOVERS AS WELL.
4 comments:
When you appoint judges based on one aim, you should recognize that turnabout is fair play when the other side does it too. The Christian conservatives wanted judges who believe women have no rights over their own bodies. They got them.
This "woke" bitch, appointed to further "equity", is their answer.
A majority on nine men in robes decided that a woman could kill her unborn in Roe. Since then, 25 million or more females have been butchered in the womb and their parts disposed of or sold for research. This is an injustice that should be corrected just like those occasions when the court decided others were less than full persons deserving of legal protection.
Women, despite your obvious contempt for us, ARE "full persons deserving of legal protection", while fetuses, living off the body of another, are not. Your high-pitched whining over "butchering" shows your contempt for the bodies and lives of women. And we are sick of your bullshit.
The woman does not become a non-human-being when she becomes pregnant. Your hatred of us will not change that fact.
I have a suggestion you will no doubt approve of, "Anonymous". Back in the day there were "maternity homes" where women who were sent to "pay for their fun" and for forcing poor defenseless men to do that painful, embarrassing thing with their delicate penises we know you all hate, could be physically and verbally abused while waiting to deliver, at which point they would resume human status. During that period they were NOT, of course, human beings with rights, those women, girls, daughters, sisters, girlfriends, they were incubators for fetuses who were not yet human beings but favored by the likes of you and your imaginary male gods. That about right?
Now, and this would provide so many new job opportunities in construction and enforcement, you Good Christians ranting about "butchered" fetuses could set up a system of expanded "maternity homes" run efficiently as prisons to which all women who become pregnant and are therefore no longer human beings with rights over their own bodies will be sent to reside and be strictly supervised until they deliver.
Even more fun, if you regain the power to do so you could pass a bill giving access to the medical records of all women over puberty in this country and send out SWAT teams to their homes to arrest them, drag them away from their families, and incarcerate them pending trial for murder. Be sure to include any relatives of yours, of course.
Until then you will just have to settle for turning the whole country into models of Texas, NH, Mississippi and other states which see to it that victims of rape and incest, as well as women who just claim sovereignty over their own bodies, the brazen hussies!!, will "pay for their fun" by being forced forced to do something no man would ever submit to in our position.
In short, go to hell.
RevereHyperVentilatesAgain:
Fetus is Latin for offspring. That which is methodically dismembered or burned to death in an abortion is a human offspring; not the parasite that you try to make it out to be. Female and Male offspring deserve full legal protection from conception forward.
The Supreme Court--a bunch of men, almost exclusively so--invented the right for a woman to kill her offspring before he or she could be born. The basis was a legal slight-of-hand in which they simply said an offspring is not a person. This claim by the Supreme Court is biologically and morally incorrect. The Supreme Court had, in the past, defined others as less than fully persons in its opinions--separate but equal was one of the intellectully too-cute ways the Court used to put it. We rightfully view those opinions with disfavor and disgust today. So it will be with Roe and its progeny in the near future.
Post a Comment