Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape

Have you ever actually read any of the cases? Affirmative action has a per se temporary status only. The cases, if you read them, literally speak to this. Every time they examine an AA case, they speak to this. Every time. At some point they're going to examine the case and find they've met the established bar of redress, and further AA is going to be unconstitutional.
It already IS, since it violates equal protection, but at some point even the pros who waive that acknowledge they'll have to drop the hammer.

 

Could be but I think the fundamental problem is this me too law that brings 25 year old accusations of sexual assault into a court today.
Statutes of limitations serve a valid purpose. Especially when speaking of young lady "laughing" and "flirting" with a millionaire as they go together into a closed dressing room alone, TWENTY FIVE friggin years ago. With nothing more than the lady's account of the event.

 

Yes, the argument for remediation does not include the idea that the individual will receive constant or continuing help.

To me, the argument is more a matter of adding some pressure to get some women into various places where they have been excluded, with the hope that this will lead to greater equality of opportunity for women.

When the norms include racism, misogyny, or whatever, something needs to happen to break the pattern that is preventing equality of opportunity and incurring the various associated costs to us all.

 

??? I voted for him and likely will be again. For President, not to date my mother. I didnt condemn Clinton for his past sexual escapades, only his perjury to the court regarding his escapades. Trump has dozens of negative traits, most not relevant to his service as President. I vote for his policies, not his demeanor. Not his personal life prior to his service in government. EVEN with all his flaws he is a better choice. Life time politicians like Clinton or Cuomo brought their sexual proclivities into their government service and exercised them with government employees. Trump had the decency to leave them out of his government service. Thats why we are instead talking about an incident with a pretty sales girl, "flirting" and "laughing" with the millionaire as the go into a closed dressing room together, 25 years ago

 

Please go read the ****ing cases. If you don't already know what they are, try figuring it out. You'll learn more that way then with me spoon feeding it to you.

 

Do not cut the quotes.
How a person handles their own business demonstrates to you how they will handle YOUR business.

You don't even ****ing know the circumstances of the allegation. She was not working at bergdorf's in sales and she sure as **** wasn't a 'girl' ffs, she had a TV show at the time, she was 52 at the time and he was 50.

I certainly hold Clinton to account for his sexual assault. I don't really care about Lewinsky as she admits she was willing. I do care about him lying about it, both to the cameras and on the stand.
So I hold the same against Trump, and I do care about him lying about it.

I also care that he apparently cannot handle his own ****ing business. I'm not going to entrust him with mine. These are traits directly relevant to his service, as stated.

 

Hasn't Shaved Tribble done enough damage to America? Why anyone would want him back in the White House where he could again try to destroy our democracy just to keep himself in power is beyond me.

 

There is no evidence that woman decided to bring lawsuit strictly by herself. It appears she was encouraged to organize hunt on Trump by politicians.

 

It looks like you refuse to admit that word equal means equal. That tells me that you have nothing to say other then continue to push leftist propaganda.

 

Google: rules of evidence court

Or see: https://www.findlaw.com/hirealawyer/choosing-the-right-lawyer/evidence-law.html

 

IOW, the minions of the state are tampering with the jury.
The jury system was designed to protect defendants from judicial bias and kangaroo courts.
When the jury system was created judges were not permitted to even speak to jurors.

It was a good system. Clearly too good -- right?

 

Given that our justice system is well documented corrupt failure nobody should trust any judge or court.
Too many have been caught red handed railroading too many innocents. But you know that.

 

Again: You've said VOIR DIRE is jury tampering. Explain yourself.

 

You think judges couldn't speak to jurors in the ****ing 1200s? Sober up.

 

I know full well that our SC doesn't give a crap about racism and sexism. And, they DO care about LGBTQ enough to attempt to make it harder on these citizens.

But, I was hoping that the white nationalist dreams of the current SC aren't the whole issue.

 

Yes, many want to ignore equality of opportunity by claiming it means equality of outcomes.

I'm suspicious that you say "equality" as that gives you latitude to complain.

 

1 is too many. But, our system was designed as a competition, not a mutual search for truth.

Defendants are crippled unless they are wealthy, as it is seriously difficult to compete with the state and dangerous to expect fairness from prosecutors. Plus, public defenders are monumentally overloaded.

That's what we have. How do you propose it be improved?

I would start with having well qualified, well paid public defenders who have access to the technology and other tools required.

It's pretty easy for politicians to run public defenders into the ground.

 

Dude: I'm talking the ORIGINAL AA cases.
Go read them. In the very first case the court acknowledges this violates equal protection and is only allowed for a limited time and purpose.
They pegged about 75 years to it in that case. How many years has it been now? Can you tell the class?

 

Still got nothing I see. A claim without evidence is without worth, though I'm pretty sure you don't understand that.

 

Show us the evidence that was excluded from THIS trial and show us how it impacted the verdict. Until you can this is just trolling, but you already knerw that.

 

People just keep gathering more information.

I don't see that as a problem.

 

"Destroy our democracy" What meaningless hyperbole.

 

In a criminal case for sexual assault, his taped comments wouldnt even be allowed into evidence. In this civil case it was allowed.

 

Those are leftist ideas, targeted to establish dictatorship and destroy democracy.
No democracy and functioning society can be built on constant redefinition of words.

 

Skip the ad hominem nonsense and focus on the issues. It helps.

Juries were created to check the power of a corrupt judiciary. Do you disagree?