Roe v. Wade and the new SC Justice

[Lou]

Just now, fan_since79 said:

...think alike.

I agree 

[fan_since79]

Here's my question for Democrats:

IF the FBI somehow were to decide to launch a "full investigation" of these claims and found that they were without merit, what then?

What's Plan B for you folks in order to stop this conservative from sitting on the court?

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, fan_since79 said:

Here's my question for Democrats:

IF the FBI somehow were to decide to launch a "full investigation" of these claims and found that they were without merit, what then?

What's Plan B for you folks in order to stop this conservative from sitting on the court?

It wouldn't matter.  They would have successfully postponed the vote beyond the mid-terms.

[Lou]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

Interesting how the individual viewpoints of psychological behavior falls predictably down political alignments so reliably. Funny that.

what does this have to do with what I posted? 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

You guys should check out the show The Keepers on Netflix. They go into some of the science behind trauma victims repressing memories.

so, in this case,  the traumatic experience would be how she got to and from the party? she seems to remember everything else. 

[Taylor]

 

[Taylor]

I disagree that the FBI should get involved.

[Spirit]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

so, in this case,  the traumatic experience would be how she got to and from the party? she seems to remember everything else. 

 

Everything else?  She doesn't remember when it was (maybe in the summer) or where it was (who's house was it at)?

 

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, Taylor said:

 

Didn't she say she never said anything or told anyone until 2012

Also, please note how strongly this woman states her political views.

[Thomas]

14 minutes ago, Lou said:

what does this have to do with what I posted? 

Well with the lack of any other coherent reason why you would disregard verified science so quickly, one is left looking for other reasons.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Who are these posters who say he’s guilty ?

Have you met Rico? 

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Exactly.  It is what we've come to.  From now on SCOTUS will be political before it is judicial.  That is why a large majority in any way is dangerous.

Was it really ever anything but political first? This utopian vision of a branch of government dictated solely by the rule of law has only existed in uncritical student textbooks.

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Was it really ever anything but political first? This utopian vision of a branch of government dictated solely by the rule of law has only existed in uncritical student textbooks.

I don't know that but I do know its much worse.  Breyer was a republican appointment.

[Blarg]

40 minutes ago, Lou said:

go on . .

Get the death penalty. 

See Socrates. 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

I don't know that but I do know its much worse.  Breyer was a republican appointment.

Is it worse than when FDR and the SCOTUS clashed on the New Deal?

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Is it worse than when FDR and the SCOTUS clashed on the New Deal?

Yes

[Lou]

15 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Well with the lack of any other coherent reason why you would disregard verified science so quickly, one is left looking for other reasons.

what verified science am I disregarding? 

[Tank]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

I think there are three schools of thought here. Those that  believe the woman with the hopes that Kavanaugh doesn't get the seat. Those that think Kavanaugh can do no wrong and the woman is lying and those that think accusations must be corroborated with facts and evidence before making a judgment. 

there's a fourth group - those who think this is not remotely relevant and is only being used for political gain. that's where i am.

[Spirit]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

what verified science am I disregarding? 

 

Round earth?

 

 

[Thomas]

7 minutes ago, Lou said:

ewhat verified science am I disregarding? 

Ignoring the low hanging fruit above basically an entire wing of mental illness field. But I think we can focus on Dissociative disorders.  It doesn't prove what the accuser is saying. However it does make absolute dismissing of the claims because of inconsistencies in the victim's recount of events facepalm worthy.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Geoff said:

 

Round earth?

hmmm, ok.

don't even get me started on the whole moon landing shenanigans 

[Lou]

Just now, Thomas said:

Ignoring the low hanging fruit above basically an entire wing of mental illness field. But I think we can focus on Dissociative disorders.  It doesn't prove what the accuser is saying. However it does make absolute dismissing the claims because of inconsistencies in the victim's recount of events facepalm worthy.

has she claimed any Dissociative disorder? seems to me others are doing that for her. 

[Thomas]

Just now, Lou said:

has she claimed any Dissociative disorder? seems to me others are doing that for her. 

For rape victims in general? Which of the 600K results would you prefer?

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

For rape victims in general? Which of the 600K results would you prefer?

let's start with the one she is claiming 

go!

[Thomas]

21 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Yes

Let me know when people are burning effigies of supreme court justices in the streets. Don't get me wrong. I think we're close to that now. But between the inflamed tensions of the Great Depression and FDR's open political threats to court, it was a messed up time.