Posted on 10/04/2018 8:09:43 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
According to the Alaska bar website there are 924 female members of the bar actually in Alaska. Imagine every one of them was pressured to sign so looks like more didn’t sign than signed.
The solution is simple - IMMEDIATELY DISBAR ANY AND ALL ATTORNEYS WHO SIGN SUCH CRAP AND EXPEL ANY/ALL LAW STUDENTS WHO ARE DOING LIKEWISE.
We are Alaskan women attorneys who work in a variety of settings, including public interest organizations, government agencies, and private practice,” the letter states, the newspaper reported. “Among us are Republicans, Democrats, Nonpartisan and Undeclared voters. We ask you, as your constituents and as fellow lawyers, to vote against confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
“It is the seriousness of the charge here, as well as the lame FBI investigation which has failed to show the proof we all know is there to be found. This evil, vile little man and his vacuous family who are all in on it, and should get what they deserve or at least be charged as accomplices. Vote “NO” or we will look at your high school and teenage years ...” she finished with a flourish.
Ask them for proof that Kavanaugh is guilty. That is the law, after all.
Female attorneys, some of the most miserable, maladjusted people imaginable. In before NAXALT.
Here I thought the FBI report was locked away in a safe only certain senators could view.
As attorneys, with evidence and fundamentals of law enforcement as their ONLY means to arrive at a conclusion supposedly, when did those AK attorneys get to view the report?
Lawyer scum looking for their next payday
The Alaska Bar Association says it has over 4,000 members, FWIW :-)
Yes. “Broken pledges to support and obey the Constitution
Every damn one of them flips the bird to due process
And should be disbarred.”
I found in my so-called ‘teaching’ career, men to be much more logical and less driven to emotional replies on tests and responses to scientific questions. It was easier to teach deductive reasoning to men. That is not to say all women were difficult. No, just the majority.
If there is a difference between men and women in terms of capacity to analyze information (eg, facts), and nobody talks about this anymore than they talk about IQ differences in physics, chemistry or math, we will change nothing ultimately in the USA. But when it comes to evaluating evidence pro or con, women don’t seem to do as well as men. “I believe her” is not “a fact” like a birth date verifiable by a birth certificate.
I think this difference is due to expectations early in the educational process at home and at school. Girls are not invited to make bridges when playing with Tonka Toys with the boys. Making bridges involves knowing how to create supports to hold the weight of the little trucks. That takes logic. Instead girls get to make pictures on side walks with chalk.
I worked for a female attorney in Alaska in the ‘80s at the “elite” firm at that time. I wonder if her name is on the list. (I didn’t see the list.)
“From posts here on FR, Alaska isn’t the last frontier of rugged individualism it was 30-40 years ago. Anchorage is kind of a mini-Seattle”
That’s very sad. I left there in ‘88 and the “rugged individualism” was the best part of Alaska. I have missed that every day. If you’re right, I can wipe that out of my head, be glad I’m not there, and move on.
If Murkowski votes NO, we should boycott Alaska as a vacation destination. No tours. No fishing/hunting. No cruises. Tourism is one of the top industries there.
Every one of those “lawyers” need to be disbarred.
Mark
And here I thought Alaskans were rugged conservative individualists, how the heck to these libs get elected?
The main 4th Amendment case that Liberals are now squawking about is Klayman v Obama... where Kavanaugh sided with Obama on bulk data collection.
Get that? Liberals are screaming that Kavanaugh cannot be trusted on privacy... because he sided with OBAMA!!!
Kavanaugh’s other main 4th Amendment cases:
NFFE (union) v Vilsack (random drug testing of US Forestry employees)
US v Askew (unzipping a jacket during a frisk)
I’m not sure that either of these is a monumental reason to pretend that he should not be allowed on the Bench. Many people support random drug testing, ESPECIALLY of Federal employees... and police unzipping a jacket during a weapons search does not seem to be an unreasonable rights violation to most people.
What’s next, Libs?
Murkowski just voted NO,Her career is over.
Murkowski has to choose between the politics of genetalia or the principles of freedom. This vote will define her.
Just avoid female lawyers unless you have a very trustworthy recommendation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.