position. you know, he said to the north carolina bar association that he doesn t think that the justices should be moral arbitrators and there s a series of cases in which they re being called on to be moral arbitrators. i think he should very much avoid trying to do anything that suggested he is doing that. i think it s important to note that it s not just the democratic side. i mean, it s also bob barr, who was the lawmaker who wrote doma in the house, has also republican congressman from georgia, libertarian candidate for president. different from gingrey, who you showed earlier. this issue unlike the voting rights act, or sort of maybe very similar in a way that scalia talked about, this issue has changed so much that you do have even the republican lead s leaders you have very few people willing to speak out who were involved in doma about defending it still to this day.
out, these horrible sexual tapes and all this alleged sexual activity that went on between she and him, the fact is, interpersonal terrorism is something where people are accustomed to men using physical aggression and violence to control and manipulate somebody. she used sex and sexuality to do the same exact thing. and when he finally realized he d been sucked into something unhealthy and tried to leave, that s when she became violent. in the course of trying to muddy this up and make him look back, i think the defense actually made her look more like the perpetrator of domestic violence. and as you know well, there are two elements to a death penalty trial. number one, the jury has to decide if she s just guilty or not guilty. that s the first phase. and if they decide she s guilty, then they are the arbitrators of whether she should live and die, and that s a whole other phase. you know, so it s really critical as to whether they can get beyond whether she s got mitigators that m
arbitration panel to look into the case of the businessman who had sold a property to a bank that was then owned by the french government and the question was, did she know that the arbitrator had had business connections, at least but bernard cappier s lawyer. if the case, did she know that the arbitrator that she was naming was dealing with the same lawyer as bernard tappe, and did that in some way allow bernard tappe to, in the end, get a favorable verdict from the arbitrators, which ended up with tens of millions of euros going into bernard tappe s pocket. it s really a long-standing case, and the police raided her home, because they were trying to turn up any further information. there s a very dogged prosecutor who s been pursuing the this for some time. and the prosecutor had apparently ordered the police to look into her personal, her home, for whatever they could find in her home, that might
evidence. insufficient evidence? we just saw them on television doing it you are absolutely right who made the decision? arbitrators. wait, wait, wait. if the president of chrysler doesn t want him back on the job. doesn t matter. collective bargaining and because of that the june appealed the fact that chrysler terminated these employees. they are entitled to as union employees to receive collective bargaining and have an arbitration they have reinstated it. who ordered it? the arbitrator in the state of michigan that was in charge of that area. the arbitrator ordered these guys back correct because they said there was insufficient evidence. there was no charges. this is suffice the fact that a reporter we spoke to mr. well check from fox 2 the news area there, he actually saw it, witnessed it, broke the story, smelled the pot, the whole thing, the moral of the story is call the cops when you walk in on union
an investigative report by a local detroit station caught people drinking and drugging, potting all of that. on their lunch hour on the clock, all right. they are getting paid. they are all union workers. and what happened to them, guilfoyle? they were union members, united auto workers and when chrysler dismissed, terminated 13 of these people and suspended two other employees, ultimately they were reinstated. it took this amount of time. they said you know what? there was insufficient evidence. insufficient evidence? we just saw them on television doing it you are absolutely right who made the decision? arbitrators. wait, wait, wait. if the president of chrysler doesn t want him back on the job. doesn t matter. collective bargaining and because of that the june appealed the fact that chrysler terminated these employees. they are entitled to as union employees to receive