Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Three months with a letter in a hip pocket of Feinstein. Truly?
Isn't he accused of attempted rape, and showing off his private parts to another women? And he's denying it. If there's any truth to the attempted rape. Then there probably more victims. But if he truly guilty of either and lying about it. Then no Christian should be okay with him on being on the bench.
I think we've all learned that Christianity gets backburnered whenever the Will of Donald is concerned.
And what responsibilities as a US Senator since the Jurassic age did Feinstein skirt on this matter? Legally? Ethically?At Ford's request. Once it was leaked...
Let's examine this a bit. Innocent until proven guilty goes all the way back to Mosaic Law and the requirement of two or three witnesses.I think we've all learned that Christianity gets backburnered whenever the Will of Donald is concerned.
LOL! Not all Christians, Some Christians want a liberal justice who will interpret the Constitution correctly.How do you know it's not Christians who are the ones who want a conservative in the SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution correctly rather than one that is a liberal activist?
That's not clear. Jeff Flake has said pretty clearly that "If they push forward without any attempt with hearing what she's had to say, I'm not comfortable voting yes,"
And several other Republican senators have hemmed and hawed.
How do you know it's not Christians who are the ones who want a conservative in the SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution correctly rather than one that is a liberal activist?
Let's examine this a bit. Innocent until proven guilty goes all the way back to Mosaic Law and the requirement of two or three witnesses.
Deuteronomy 19: NASB
15“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16“If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18“The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.
What's lacking in all three separate accusations is just one more witness. Been bleeding that all over this thread and a few more. All the Democrats have to do is get one more sworn statement or witness that says yep Kavanaugh was there, the woman was there , and he did that. One more....Then the dialogue would be about perjury---and that is based on the quality and volume of the evidence.
What do you think those documents mean to her claim?
Well that would be hypocritical no? Claims need two or more witnesses.Because they'd find a jurist with a less rape-y reputation to do it.
And what responsibilities as a US Senator since the Jurassic age did Feinstein skirt on this matter? Legally? Ethically?
She should have pointed her to the Montgomery County Maryland DA's office to file her complaint and the investigation would have begun.What are you suggesting? The Senator should have divulged the Ford's letter, violating her request for privacy?
LOL! Not all Christians, Some Christians want a liberal justice who will interpret the Constitution correctly.
Because they'd find a jurist with a less rape-y reputation to do it.
Character and integrity matter to Christians -- or at least it used to before Donald offered them what really matters: power.
By definition, liberals don't interpret the Constitution correctly. They're the ones who don't even think it's relevant, even when they sit on the Supreme Court. Who is it that said, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”?
It's true. You hadn't heard?Wait what?
Wait what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?