You qualified your statement as the accusations coming from a primary or secondary reference.I've been a hiring manager before, and if a primary or secondary reference reported a sexual assault by the candidate, even it it was never prosecuted, I wouldn't even follow up, it would be game over for that candidate. There would be no criminal investigation, there would be opportunity for the candidate to give his side of the story, it would just be over. And every hiring manager I can think of would respond the same way. There's absolutely no reason for a company to risk something like that when there are almost always other candidates that are close to equally qualified without the baggage. You must hang out with some really shitty hiring managers.
Its only slander if it is untrue. And the company hiring wouldn't be liable for slander, only the person claiming the sexual assault. There is literally zero negatives for the company to not hire the person and huge liability for the company to do so. You seem to subscribe to the school of thought that it is common for women to just make up allegations about sexual assault by men when it is actually rare. The vast majority of claims of sexual assault are real.I can’t think of one hiring manager that would entertain nth hour accusations absent of anyone pressing charges or a criminal investigation. That is called slander.
Still having trouble falling the boucing ball? Did you look into that knee brace yet?Seems to have been conveniently ignored.
For a public office at the level of the supreme court, I'd consider the entire population a reference.You qualified your statement as the accusations coming from a primary or secondary reference.
Dr. Ford is not a reference.
If I’ve done the due diligence of checking with references, and there are no red flags, I would question the motive of someone not contemporarily associated with the candidate making such accusations.
I can be a democratic socialist and still call out the Democrats for their bvllshit.Bullshit. The SCOTUS will rule on issues like abortion independently of Congress & the Presidency. 50 year old GOP appointees will affect those decisions for decades into the future, not likely in favor of democratic socialism at all. Quite the contrary.
You can't be a democratic socialist & a shill for the GOP at the same time.
Seems to have been conveniently ignored.
I think you are confusing obfuscation with outright dismissal.Well, I mean, he did try to obfuscate.
Well, I mean, he did try to obfuscate.
wut?
Still having trouble falling the boucing ball? Did you look into that knee brace yet?
Wut is there to wut about? Are you oblivious to the fact that the purpose of the JUDICIAL branch is JUDGE the interpretation of the laws... and not make them? Or do you need to go back to 3rd grade history class?
That damn Constitution keeps the Democrats from forcing laws on the people. Amirite?
He's very concerned, so concerned he constantly attacks the group that is supposedly most aligned with his ideals for not being pure enough.
You kind of skipped over the rest of Starbuck's post there champ. Try reading the entire thing. If you need help ask Starbuck.
I've been a hiring manager before, and if a primary or secondary reference reported a sexual assault by the candidate, even it it was never prosecuted, I wouldn't even follow up, it would be game over for that candidate. There would be no criminal investigation, there would be opportunity for the candidate to give his side of the story, it would just be over. And every hiring manager I can think of would respond the same way. There's absolutely no reason for a company to risk something like that when there are almost always other candidates that are close to equally qualified without the baggage. You must hang out with some really shitty hiring managers.
His general message (if I'm understanding correctly) is that regardless of Kav going to SCOTUS for life - it will have little to no bearing on how the country is run if democrats take over congress and the senate.... Basically, if that takes place SCOTUS can disagree with what laws get passed all they want - but that isn't something they get to decide. They just get to interpret them.
So for example - even if SCOTUS interprets something historical that isn't to their liking (e.g. abortion), they would (in theory) just be able to pass a new one and the SCOTUS has no recourse.
His general message (if I'm understanding correctly) is that regardless of Kav going to SCOTUS for life - it will have little to no bearing on how the country is run if democrats take over congress and the senate.... Basically, if that takes place SCOTUS can disagree with what laws get passed all they want - but that isn't something they get to decide. They just get to interpret them.
So for example - even if SCOTUS interprets something historical that isn't to their liking (e.g. abortion), they would (in theory) just be able to pass a new one and the SCOTUS has no recourse.
2/5 of me disagrees with that statementThat damn Constitution keeps the Democrats from forcing laws on the people. Amirite?
He understood it. You seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball. Maybe there is a class you can take or something.You kind of skipped over the rest of Starbuck's post there champ. Try reading the entire thing. If you need help ask Starbuck.
They can’t just arbitrarily reverse it willy nilly. That’s not how any of this works.Hardly. If the SCOTUS reverses Roe & puts the abortion issue into the realm of States' Rights there's nothing Congress can do about it.
They can’t just arbitrarily reverse it willy nilly. That’s not how any of this works.
He understood it. You seem to have trouble following the bouncing ball. Maybe there is a class you can take or something.
Many arguments exist in draft form, that is why political parties tend to go judge shopping in deciding where to pursue cases.Or what? Who's going to stop them? Shee-it, Sherlock. The arguments likely already exist in draft form. If the SCOTUS declares abortion to be an issue of States' Rights, then it is. End of story.
Unless, of course, the states chose not to ban it in which case, "Congress must act…"Or what? Who's going to stop them? Shee-it, Sherlock. The arguments likely already exist in draft form. If the SCOTUS declares abortion to be an issue of States' Rights, then it is. End of story.
You mean 3/5ths ? Changed by Amendment to the Constitution.2/5 of me disagrees with that statement