A perjury too far, or they never answered the question in the first person directly?

[bucolic_frolic]

Link to tweet

Ronald Lebow
@RonLebow

[PufPuf23]

1. At best, the liars deliberately answered the question evasively as

Colbert points out.

IMO all three have more business being in prison than being a Justice on the USSC.

I know that is delusional.

[gratuitous]

2. "I accept the law of the land"

Which means, that should I become a Supreme Court Justice, the law of the land is whatever I say it is. Right this second, as I sit here in a confirmation hearing, I'm not on the Supreme Court, and Roe is the law of the land. If I'm confirmed, though . . .

But, since we're all scholars and proper ladies and gentlemen here in this little job interview, nobody would be so crass as to ask, "And if you're confirmed, do you see yourself as overturning Roe at the first opportunity, since you will then be the law of the land?"

[bucolic_frolic]

3. +1

'and you should too.'

[brooklynite]

4. Prove they thought differently and lied...

Seriously, to show perjury you have to show Intent to deceive as opposed to “they changed their mind”.