Sexism

Sounds like a textbook narcissist.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Given how it was already common knowledge that he treated his staff like crap, this is hardly surprising.

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

In Bill Cosby's retrial, his defense team tried to get the judge to recuse himself because the judge's wife is a therapist for sexual assault victims. Just when I thought the guy couldn't get any worse ... ^{Full article text} From text copy of NY Times, emphasis mine.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

People can always sink lower, especially when they are desperate.

Disgusted, but not surprised

You do know that while he possibly signed off on it, it's almost certain that the idea of that motion came from Cosby's legal team, not the man himself, right?

I'm not even going to try to defend Cosby after what he did, but let's be realistic here.

edited 30th Mar '18 9:25:21 AM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Are lawyers under the same requirement to defend their client as companies are required to defend their trademarks? As in, are they legally required to follow up on anything they suspect may improve the case for their client?

Check out my fanfiction!

I'd imagine that they have some sort of "don't make them look like a scumbag in the process" clause.

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

Wouldn't looking like a scumbag be an improvement?

Check out my fanfiction!

Doesn't matter, he hired them and they represent him thus what they do reflects on him.

edited 30th Mar '18 12:10:37 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Yes, lawyers are required to represent their client to the best of their abilities. Failing to do so can get them disbarred.

And honestly, trying to get judges (and jurors) booted from a case because their life experiences may leave them biased in regards to the case matter is SOP for court cases. It's not some low-down sleezeball move used only by badwrong people.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

So it's a low-down sleezeball move used by all people in the legal profession?

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

Yes.

It's sleazeball move that they're legally required to make.

Or you can sue them for not trying hard enough.

Oh really when?

Good thing the kind of defendants public defendants defend can't afford to sue the public defendants for lack of due diligence in their defence.

TLDR, if you're poor you're fucked.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

There's nothing sleazy about it, it's just how the adversarial court system works. Both parties argue their side of the case as effectively as possible. That includes trying to remove people who may be biased against their client. Their job isn't to worry about whether it's fair — that's what the judge is for.

It's the exact same process that a district attorney trying to prosecute a hate crime would use to get an avowed white supremacist off of a jury. It's not automatically sleazy just because Bill Cosby is doing it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I would say that this specific example is absolutely sleazy, the practice as a whole not necessarily being sleazy doesn't really change that.

(also no-one said that it's sleazy because Bill Cosby was doing it, personally I don't care who's being accused I would find this to be sleazy either way)

edited 30th Mar '18 6:32:42 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

In fact this is the exact reason Trump may never be tried before a grand jury. It will be extremely difficult to find a Jury of US citizens who doesn't already have a strong opinion on him, one way or the other.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

How is it sleazy? The guy's job is to be a neutral, unbiased third party overseeing the trial. His wife is a therapist for sexual assault victims — it's not a ridiculous notion to suggest that he might be biased in a sexual assault case. If he is biased, he should be removed.

I honestly don't see a problem with any of that.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Looking for a judge that wouldn't be biased, doesn't mean that they will find one that won't find him guilty.

When bias is removed, the facts still play a role, and they are pretty clear here.

And by trying to remove that judge, they're trying to remove bias.

No lawyer should give up on trying just because they think the verdict is clear.

Check out my fanfiction!

Tradition says women aren't allowed, and in Japan, that even extends to female medical workers trying to save someone's life. If someone is willing to die for their bigotry, I say the least we can do is to let them die. ^{Full article text} From text copy of NY Times, emphasis mine.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Yeah I would agree completely, it would be only fair after-all.

edited 6th Apr '18 1:52:58 PM by Fourthspartan56

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

Out of curiosity, by "If someone is willing to die for their bigotry, I say the least we can do is to let them die," did you mean the politician in the article specifically, or just people in general? Because reading the excerpt, it was a referee telling the women to leave the ring, not the politician who had collapsed.

Yeah, it seems like the people who were guilty of this bullshit weren't the people at most immediate risk of death. Now if it turns out the victim was telling the women to get away even though they were the only people capable of saving his life then sure, but I don't think that's the case here.

In general.

Unless someone stabs the ref, then in specific.

It does make me wonder, if it was a female politician giving the speech, would they have forced her to do it from outside the ring?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw