That commentor was wrong. The person who said it wasn’t in court, wasn’t a lawyer, and didn’t work for Monsanto.

No, they haven’t. The person who said that wasn’t a lawyer and wasn’t connected Monsanto.

But then those experts get packaged and presented by lawyers and interpreted by non-expert juries who have no training in interpreting scientific evidence.

There’s no prosecution in a civil trial.

Yeah, a bunch of non scientists trying to interpret scientific data is not a great way to determine the truth. Courts know this and have tried to mitigate it when it comes to evidence, but things like this case are beyond that scope.

I don’t think it was actually said in court. An idiot lobbyist said it off the cuff in on a tv interview and people have latched on to it. This could actually be something to overturn the verdict if it can be shown the juror used evidence from outside the trial.

I don’t believe it was ever said in court. It was in a PR interview, and was dumb.

It’s really amazing how far you can get with identity politics. Big government help is far more important to rural communities than to cities. There’s just not as much profit to be made putting in good internet or hospitals in small towns. Whereas government can do those things because it’s part of being a nation.

Basketball has a shot clock and football has a play clock, specifically to prevent this kind of thing. You can stall, but there's a defined limit to how long. 

I know. But Senate is the only realistic upward job he can possibly get. 

Sorry, but you are much slower than the racists in the greys. They’ve already branded her a Nazi apologist.

Can’t wait to see how BO uses this to attack Pelosi.

Reversing Roe would still make it a state issue. 

Are you pretending I’m Susan Collins? Or that I’m defending her?

You misunderstand. I’m not saying they don’t get rid of abortions. I’m just saying they do it by letting states do things like “abortions only on the 3th Tuesday of the month as long as there was a blood moon.”

Well, yeah. The whole point was to give her a figleaf so she could pretend to be pro-choice and do her usual drama.

Right, but he’d be at worst a coin toss to take the Senate seat. Right now I don’t think he’s even 50/50 to make the presidential debates.

Yes, states could allow it, but it would still be a crime and federal officials could still arrest you. And given how anti choice people love standing outside clinics and taking notes already, that would absolutely happen.

I’m still not convinced they’ll fully overturn it. I think they’ll whittle it down to nothing in their states, but just enough that it’s still a campaignable issue.

Kavanaugh was so clear in his parsing that he didn’t care about precedent. Not sure how anyone could have missed it.