comment: >
  
  Another win for Biden and for this country. If only we didn't have to constantly struggle against republicans to protect what should be a woman's basic right to her own body
context: Remember when Anita Hill came forward to tell her story of Clarence Thomas' sexual assualt?
  Remember when she didnt take one but two polygraphs to prove that she was telling the truth? 
  Remember when Clarence Thomas refused to take a polygraph himself?
  Remember when Mitch McConnell and the Rs confirmed Clarence Thomas anyways?
  Remember the day when judicial decency and integrity died? >
  
  To be fair, polygraphs are a load of shit. Innocent or guilty I would never agree to take one. For all the bad shit Thomas has done it would be insane to expect someone familiar with the unreliability of the polygraph (as a justice like Thomas surely is) to take one. >
  
  The point is that mrs Hill was giving her account, even willing to do multiple polygraphs, which at that time were still considered to be very accurate btw, and yet republicans belittled her and dismissed her testimony.
  Meanwhile Thomas did nothing to assure his innocence.
  Yes, it wasnt a criminal court procedure but again, the entire thing was a complete farce and republicans pushed him through out of spite, because dems block Bork years prior.
  Now there is a corrupt, treachorous justice on the scotus who potentially committed sexual assault. (The fact that its not clear which justice i am talking about based on this sentence alone is even worse) >
  
  That's irrelevant.  Polygraph can be easily brat, and just because you agreed to it, doesn't make you better. >
  
  Back then it wasn't widely known that - or more importantly how - they could be invalided (btw, it's not that you can beat them it's that you can make it too unreliable to be useful).
  Ultimately one of the two people lied and only one became a major political force that invalidated the right of millions of women to have control of their own uterus. >
  
  But ppl can beat them... >
  
  The point is not whether or not they can be ‘beaten’, because if no-one at the time knew that, then it becomes an acceptable standard in its time.
  The point is that one person went so far as to be willing to submit themselves to a procedure that was deemed reliable at the time, while the accused didn’t.
  Unless it was public knowledge at the time that polygraphs could be cheated, then it stands to reason that Clarence Thomas had little reason to not take the test too if he was honest.