Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Then read some of her technical articles, not her partisan stuff.
    1
  2.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Okay, honey. Whatever you say.
    1
  3.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Michigan Law Review would qualify as technical. Stuff she wrote speaking as a politician, partisan.
    1
  4.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Chill. Seriously. None of these politicos is worth this much of your precious time. We all know what the prevailing criteria are for being a "good" lawyer. Warren did meet them, amply. I told you where to look to verify that statement. No one suggested lawyers compare with being an astrophysicist, or even a good novelist. Although, the lawyer representing Asian students in their discrimination suit actually did study to become an astrophysicist. Now that is interesting. Of course he is smarter than Warren. But that wasn't the issue.
    1
  5. ​ @LetsAllDrinkToTheDeathOfAClown  Liar. Learn to speak French. Then maybe you can follow their reporters, rather than making up your preferred narrative (= story).
    1
  6. There is that, also. When a teenage girl has sudden onset dysphoria, a qualified therapist needs to gently probe. She may have been bullied, or . . . Much worse.
    1
  7. School = reverse psychology Better tell them not to mention it.
    1
  8. What was the reason for firing the Inspectors General? The President's nominees were all just confirmed by the Senate to head the various agencies and departments. Perhaps it would make sense to seek out their views on how to improve efficiency and cut costs? Why do you think Patel and Gabbard immediately told their employees not to respond? Because they want to hide fraud? 😂
    1
  9. @paaao  You might pay closer attention to his role in circumventing the Obama-era ban on funding gain of function research, and hiding his tracks when COVID escaped from the experiments he funded.
    1
  10.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Did you notice that jeers and name calling are no problem, but a cogent post is? They want us to look stupid and be stupid.
    1
  11.  @sdilluminatigrandfounder1813  Who are "you people?" It's in the emails. Did an alien write them? Did AI doctor them? I expect to be dealing with the latter soon, and you should, too. In order to be ready, stop being so rigid. Mindless ideology.
    1
  12. They only care about cha-ching 💰
    1
  13. The case fatality rate is about 2% overall. But you still have a point, especially for children and teens, and even people under 30.
    1
  14. I thought she could. Wow.
    1
  15. That is normal. No, I'm serious.
    1
  16. ​ @tuckerwalden2049 This was a pro bono case that her Prestigious Law Firm took for more prestige and stuff. Partners don't write this stuff, either.
    1
  17. ​@tuckerwalden2049 The judges I worked for were far more hands on.
    1
  18. ​@christineadam6764 She said she read it, and that it's ten years old. I don't defend her answer, but if that is her worst, yawn.
    1
  19. Barrett's questions suggest exactly the opposite.
    1
  20. The only one I'd believe if he said he did not know is Mike Pence. They'd hide big time from Mike Pence.
    1
  21.  @alesh2275  First of all, Harvard is private, so it does not have to abide by the Equal Protection clause. In fact, the First Amendment freedom of association gives it a lot of leeway in how it determines admissions. What Harvard cannot do is accept federal funds and use impermissible racial criteria to determine any applicant's admission. Up until now, there was a line of Supreme Court cases that allowed limited use of race in addition to other factors, for the purpose of building a diverse class (private schools all do this, starting with private kindergartens). Waxman was arguing that Harvard meets these criteria. The other side wants the whole line of precedent that permits using race in college admissions to be overturned -- or to force Harvard to stop accepting federal funds, and admit whoever it wants on its own dime.
    1
  22.  @alesh2275  Seth Waxman was Solicitor General. These guys all know each other since forever.
    1
  23. The line of Supreme Court cases Waxman relies on all say that Harvard can use race in the way Waxman claims they did. The other side wants those cases overturned. The first discrimination Harvard performs is legacy and "special development" vs. everyone else. All legal, because Harvard is private. Too bad Harvard has the influence it does.
    1
  24.  @christines8529  No, a university is not a business, nor does it open its doors to commerce or to the general public. I suggest you read the briefs. UNC is a state university, so its admissions are subject to scrutiny for racial discrimination, but Harvard is in this particular lawsuit, and its admissions practices are being scrutinized, only because it accepts federal money. If Harvard didn't, then it could basically admit whomever it wants -- but it has to do that strictly on its own dime. Really sorry to see that we are at the point where we think universities are "a business," but I'm not surprised.
    1
  25.  @christines8529  What federal laws govern all private university admissions? Meaning, regardless of their charter and regardless of whether they accept federal funds in any form. Please tell me. Have you never heard of women's colleges, the historical black colleges (where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Justice Thurgood Marshall were educated), very strict religious colleges that train people for the ministry? Read the briefs.
    1
  26.  @christines8529  The pertinent statute is Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. -- 42 United States Code Section 2000d (emphasis added) That's from the Asian students' petition for cert and brief in support of granting relief.
    1
  27. ​ @christines8529  No, Harvard DOES benefit from federal funds, even though it's a private school, which is why it must also obey federal anti-discrimination laws. That's why this lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is rich enough to finance all of its needy students and to extricate itself from depending on public money. But that is surprisingly hard to do, and complicated, so it won't. Besides, the money is green. What I really think is that these elitist institutions shouldn't have the stranglehold on society and politics that they do. I think their legacy pools and "special development" pools are just as discriminatory, or more, than anything else they do. If they want to be modified four-year country clubs for the Jared Kushners (or Chelsea Clintons) of the world, bless them, they can rely on First Amendment freedom of association and go their merry way. But then they go on to affect the lives of the rest of us, and of the rest of the people on this planet -- and they do it for their benefit, on our dime. A really interesting read was the letter Harvard's President wrote when it was revealed just how much Harvard was mixed up with Jeffrey Epstein. Am I changing the subject? No. To me, this is the heart of the matter. We argue about who is qualified to be admitted to Harvard -- and I say, who cares? Why are they then "qualified" to control the lives of the rest of us? They clearly are not. That's what I care about. There is no way to make Harvard admissions fair. There are too many qualified people vying for too few seats, and too many people who want to game the system, and can. Why do so many people apply? Because it really is as close to a guarantee of success in life as you can possibly find at age 18. But why is it?
    1
  28. For what? Naming buildings and schools after major donors, instead of people of real stature? Agreed.
    1
  29. ​ @jailman1  Wait. Are you this crazy? It's not possible. No one is this crazy.
    1
  30. Not from this excerpt.
    1
  31.  @LegoAnimationGuy1  That's called legacy admission, and it's legal.
    1
  32.  @schokoladenritter7969  A lot of immoral things are legal.
    1
  33.  @schokoladenritter7969  My point is that admissions are not on the basis of merit, and that a private university is allowed to admit using criteria other than merit. Funny how that is. Follow the money, as usual.
    1
  34. Or not being able to get rid of her for some other reason.
    1
  35.  @Stop_Gooning  Then who would sign up? You'd need to triple the salary and perks.
    1
  36.  @rogerdoger3376  He didn't touch Fauci.
    1
  37. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  You cannot criminalize incompetence. There must be some level of intent, or at least recklessness, which is more than incompetence.
    1
  38. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  Because it flies in the face of the most basic difference between mere negligence or incompetence and crime: mens rea. You must have some level of intent to be a criminal. Your superior is supposed to know if you're competent. If you lie to him about your credentials or any other aspect of your knowledge base or your experience, that can be a crime. You cannot lie to a government agent involved in enforcing the laws (as Martha Stewart found out).
    1
  39.  @Stop_Gooning  Citizenship revoked, lol.
    1
  40. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  Okay. Do what you want with your failing society. Every proposed cure is even worse than the disease. Every time someone gets mad, they want to do something to repeal constitutional protections -- one of the very few good things we've still got going at this point. Have at it.
    1
  41. @the_inquisitive_inquisitor  You will need a draft soon, to man your military. You don't see that? You already cannot find competent people to fill essential posts. You should ask why the incompetent are attracted to this line of work, and fix that, pronto. Because incompetent law enforcement is appearing at all levels. Remember Uvalde? Or currently, Sonya Massey?
    1
  42.  @Stop_Gooning  Ah, so you do want to trash the Constitution. Go ahead.
    1
  43.  @Stop_Gooning  And you're qualified to do that? 😂
    1
  44. "Near" the court or residence is the key. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge pro-life protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. All of those protests and rallies were legal. Are memories that short?
    1
  45.  @jacappy111  reported, blocked
    1
  46.  @Jeangrey567  The tech giants who censored this enjoy Section 230 immunity, a federal law that preempts any state's laws. A lawsuit would be dismissed. They would move to have the lawyer fined for filing a frivolous nuisance suit.
    1
  47. What gets you admitted is being in the legacy or special development pool.
    1
  48. @arctain1  Correct. Today, the Supreme Court pointed out that a number of states have banned race-based admissions, including California.
    1
  49.  @ezesagus6177  A lawsuit was just filed against the legacy system. Super great news!
    1
  50. Leslie Wexner did, and he gave hundreds of millions. Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's close friend and patron. They were taking his money until this happened and he withdrew his support.
    1