Overall, my theory lines up with yours. They knew thr simple minds at the top would fire them, and somehow that benefits them. They are lawyers after all, and getting hired into the jobs they had makes it very likely they were at least savvy in political maneuvers.
I think this pretty much answers the question “are humans evil?” Spoiler, yes.
Well of course it should be simpler, the employer should put a stop to it without even requiring a complaint. Aside from it being the right thing to do, allowing it opens them to all sorts of liability. So obviously the employer isn’t very bright. The rest was part joke, and part a way to possibly play nice and still get what she wanted. Only someone who knows him would know if it would work or make things worse. So I could have put your milage may vary, but I thought that was kind of obvious.
Well in this case it probably isn’t money he is after, but attention and fame. That said, just tell him you had a past “incident” you don’t like to talk about, but that your image shouldn’t be on anything that might give away your current location. Lol.
Look, I didn’t read your whole thing, because if you think trump personally picked up a single box of those docs or even was there when they were moved, you are crazy. He probably just told someone to keep the “best” documents. But I also said that your theory is possible. I just don’t find it likely.
Yes, but teaching is not one of those professions. Medical professionals actually the only ones I know of bound by law to not speak. Lawyers are “protected” by law, but not actually bound. If they do speak they can be disbarrred, but not jailed I believe. Teachers are mandatory reporters, which compells them to speak, but nothing in law says what they can’t say. And yes, there are some exceptions against free speach, but if you look at them, they generally are things that endanger multiple people at one time. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater. So those don’t apply here. Also, those cases it is clear that the restriction only prevents a downside. In this case, there could be upsides. A child who hasn’t told thier parents and is struggling with it, but who’s parents could be supportive. In that case, not being allowed to tell them could cause harm. So it isn’t cut and dry like the others.
As for the bad teachers, yes, I addressed that in the next sentence or two after the quote you gave.
That’s why I threw in the maybe. Anything is possible. On the witness thing… I am sure it wasn’t a small boat. He could just go to a room and witness nothing.
You should really read up. While it is state dependent, emotional abuse is cover under mandatory reporting in most state.
I get that you’re not too bright, didn’t read the article, and didn’t really read what I wrote, but… acting like nazis and telling teachers what they can and can’t say to parents isn’t the way to defeat the nazis.
Wait, am I missing something? This just says they have the right, not any kind of requirement. So basically saying teachers have free speach. This doesn’t seem controversial to me. It’s a cornerstone of the constitution that the current administration is trying to take away. I would be upset if they were ordered to report it… but I am also against them being ordered not to. The majority of teachers I have met, want the best for the kids. And they would only want to even bring up the subject if they thought the kid needed help in some way, and that the parents could provide. Sure there are exceptions, but tieing the hands of the majority to enable punishment of a minority isn’t the answer. In reality, if a teacher tells a parent that thier kid is using different pronouns, and the parent gets very upset, the teacher is a mandatory reporter. So if any reasonable person would think the parent may in some way cause harm, which would include inducing suicide, they have to report it. So they are already incentivized to not say anything, and in many cases could be disciplined if they did. So even though this judge sounds like a jerk, overall, he has the right idea. Teachers shouldn’t be censored.
Sure maybe, but he wouldn’t have stuck around to literally witness the killing and disposal, which I think is the claim. And also, he has been pretty blatant about how he likes fit and thin women. I’m not seeing him wanting to rape a pregnant girl.
It doesn’t really seem like the kind of thing he would be around for. He has others do the dirty work, and thinks it’s below him to just be around people he isn’t presently takening advantage of (as in, unless he was doing her at the time, why would he be there). Doesn’t mean there wasn’t some strange combination of events that caused him to be there, and I can’t see him caring one way or another about the baby, so he would totally be aware of it and not care.
Go slower to go faster.
I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.
That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can’t make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.
I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn’t based on the origin of the “law”.
The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn’t mean they broke the Geneva convention.
Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.
You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.
It being law in the US is highly questionable. But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual. And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual. If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about. And if they could reasonably do so, they probably would have.
Portal. It’s older than you think, but still solid.
How nice of you to only say endanger… surely many have died already.
He didn’t break any US laws because the manual isn’t law, and the action happened outside the US. So I think all that can happen is he gets impeached by congress.
Next months story will be about ice officers in minn pulling guns on off duty ice officers who were brought in from the south and who just have a dark tan. That will be a real hoot.