I have no problem applying rule of law to this creature inhabiting the role of an officer of the court, in this case. Nor having rule of law administered to it by the court.
A rude, thoughtless little pig.
Let’s say she is a human whose psyche I could understand. She is still rude, thoughtless, and a pig.
A pig by metonymy.
And, to answer your question, yes. I do realize. So what?
One abides by standing at the court and facing application of the law in an ordered fashion.
Those who fail are not recognized or are out of order.
I shall look forward to its next syllable with great eagerness.
Rude, thoughtless little pig. Is what she is. And not the good part of a pig, either.
Due to your post I have Elton John yelling, “pig, pig, rude vile pig!” going through my head.
Howzabout “MoneyGrubbing Who-er”?
As long as you know what kinds of dignified company you find yourself in, bully for you on knowing how authoritarian you are and how comfortable you are dehumanizing people you don’t like to the point of referring to them as ‘it’.
Did you see Star Trek’s Mirror, Mirror? Spock had a wonderful line:
It was far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.
Habba is evidently stupid. She does not know how to fake being smart.
Alec Baldwin? Is that you?!
No. 
Alec Baldwin is an actor, whereas I am merely willing to suggest that Habba is not a pig.
Not a full-grown pig, anyway.
A little one.
A little, thoughtless, rude, pig.
Almost a human in training. When it can learn to speak in a courtroom, then perhaps it can have garage degree in law for the bigs.
You know what one needs to stand up to a judge in a courtroom? Brass.
I’m not convinced Habba is human. I’ve seen photographs, and read written statements, but its behavior is unlike that which others would do in similar situations.
I’m not taking ColdBrew50’s side here completely, but you do understand that respect is not reciprocated, right? TFG does not think of YOU as a human being. You are an object to be subjugated, owned, or taken advantage of - nothing more, nothing less.
Pure sociopaths are difficult to define as human beings because they don’t consider others as human beings. Or even themselves - they think they are the only human beings, the rest of us don’t count.
Oh, she’s definitely human and that’s certainly shown by her behaviour both in and out of court for this case. Mind you, She’s putting more than a couple of the worst aspects of humanity on display.
No, Carroll’s lawyer was the one asking the questions (it was direct examination). Abba was objecting to the other lawyer’s question.
D’oh! Thank you for catching that. Still it’s absurdly stupid, but not as dumb as I thought it was.
It’s a robot made after the fashion of a Lauren Boebert. And about roughly as “pretty.” (As in, rode hard and put away wet and left in an anaerobic environment for a while to lie supine as a host to the moldering clostridia spores.)
I don’t have any further knowledge of either entity.
Here’s the corrected version:
“Habba? She’s a Boebert!”
“Boebert? She’s a Habba!”
Rinse and repeat.
Of course I’m aware of and understand that - you’ll notice the sentence before the one you quote is
The type of person to refer to people they don’t like as ‘vermin’ is a reference to TFG using that terminology, and quoting Adolf Hitler, when referring to his political opponents as vermin.
Oh yeah, and immigrants are poisoning our blood. I kind of forget who it was that said that, was it TFG or Hitler. Hmm, oh yeah, it was both:
As I said, bully to ColdBrew if he’s aware of the kinds of dignified company he keeps, how authoritarian he is, and what it says about him if he’s comfortable imagining that people he doesn’t like aren’t people, and reducing them to ‘it’.
But if the judge follows through and ejects him from the courtroom for being disruptive, the trial goes on without him anyway. Don’t see a functional difference between him just going to the funeral and leaving Habba “unsupervised” and him standing outside the courthouse with his nose pressed up against the glass (and leaving Habba “unsupervised”).
You’re focued on the wrong function. Waaaaaaaay back in the days of normalcy (before Trump became the rubelicans’ god-emperor, the only functions that mattered relating to a trial were the legal functions. But today is a different story. The judge and the prosecutor must follow the legal niceties and the judge will attempt to make the defnse attorney do the same. Trump, on the other hand, is focused on what is the important function to him of a trial. That, of course, is to rile up his worshippers. There’s not a thing he or his legal team have done that is not to serve that interest.
That’s some pretty extreme misogyny there, don’t you think? And by “you” I mean everyone else reading the thread, you would have to actually acknowledge that Alina Habba is a human being to see misogyny in referring to her as an ‘it’ and portraying a woman (yes, even Alina Habba is both human and a woman) as a robot sex doll ‘rode hard and put away wet’, and left to have bacteria grow in her (sorry, ‘it’s’) pocket pussy.
I would not personally have described Habba in those terms, but I also think you might be going a bit overboard here. What most of us are doing here is giving Habba precisely the respect that she has earned and deserves, namely none whatsoever. We’re treating her with the same contempt that she treats others. This is the Pit, where we not only insult off-board strangers, but also directly insult posters that we know (at least virtually) and regularly interact with. So it bothers me a little when I see what could be regarded as fake sanctimony over a style of ridicule that would not be out of place, say, in The National Lampoon. I don’t care if Habba is a woman, a man, or a space alien; she is a contemptible, opportunistic piece of shit, just like her client. And it’s by choice.
I agree-Poor excuses of human females should be treated equally with poor excuses of human males.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I guess that, while I would be reluctant to dehumanize someone unilaterally, I really have little issue doing it to someone who’s done it to me (and really all of us) first.
With that said, I somehow completely missed the whole “Boebert-comparison” paragraph and can’t in anyway condone that. IMHO, it crosses the line into “they’re none of them human and should be treated as things” that does cross into dangerous territory (with more than a tinge of extreme misogyny).