Every damn Trump SCOTUS appointee lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings

[Atticus]

about their views on Roe.

When do you the impeachments start?

Oh, yeah---the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't vote to convict, so let's not make them vote "NO" on TV.

Never mind. Just keep smilin' and noddin' while these fascist whores in robes decide who they'll rape next.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. agree w/you on all four points. GDMF lying SOBs (and B)

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. If only republicons could be made to face consequences for their crimes.

[diane in sf]

3. There is no code of ethics for the Extreme Court. If we can up our Senate members in

the midterms, this is one of the first pieces of legislation to pass, along with securing women’s rights, voting rights, and expanding the Court..

[Carlitos Brigante]

4. So did both Bushes' appointees. But not a damn thing will happen. nt

[inthewind21]

5. This

This comes as a surprise to you?

[Atticus]

7. Nowhere did I say or imply that. nt

[Zeitghost]

6. No, they didn't

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

This is starting to get a bit embarrassing and is not helping the cause.


Agreeing that something is precedent and stating you respect stare decisis is not a promise or claim to uphold a past ruling in the future.



How do you expect the next democratic nominee to answer questions about the precedent of Dobbs?

[Atticus]

8. Where in my OP did I say they "promised to uphold" Roe? I said they "lied about their views on Roe"

Do you think that saying they would respect Roe as a precedent, honor stare decisis and that Roe was "settled law" was responding truthfully to the questions asked by US Senators?

Is their current stance on Roe not 180 degrees opposite what they told the Senate?

Parsing that favors the fascists intent on the destruction of our democracy is what is "starting to get a bit embarrassing and is not helping the cause".

Finally, I expect Democrats UNDER OATH asked about their view of Dobbs to ANSWER TRUTHFULLY!

[Zeitghost]

11. Claiming they lied

Is based on the false idea that precedent or stare decisis means "will never be overturned".

Every answer given was factually correct, they simply stated the current legal status of Roe. They never made claims as to how they would rule in the future or if Roe should be overturned.


Every Democratic nominee will answer similarly, as they have in the past when asked similar questions. None will offer their legal or personal opinion on whether it is good or bad law or how they would rule if a future case would result in overturning the decision. It's how every judicial nominee responds to questions about hypothetical future rulings. Doing otherwise could prejudice future rulings.

[fightforfreedom]

14. They lied.

[Atticus]

15. More parsing. I thought maybe this is what "stare decisis" meant"

"Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions."
https://www.investopedia.com › terms

[Zeitghost]

16. Then any Democratic nominee

Is obligated to uphold Dobbs? Or Heller and McDonald? Or any of the soon to come rulings from this court? Is that your position?

[Atticus]

17. As you well know, of course prior decisions can be overruled. But, we are not talking about

just any "prior rulings or decisions". My OP was about the three Justices who, when asked repeatedly about how they viewed a specific 49 year old strongly reaffirmed decision supported by nearly 3 out of every 4 Americans, gave answers calculated to decieve about whether they thought it was should be overturned. The terms "settled law" and "law of the land" were used, followed by "of course I will respect that, Senator."

If a Democrat were to do that, I---and most here, I believe---would say he or she lied.

Believe it or not, I understand your argument. I just reject it as "exalting form over substance."

[Zeitghost]

20. I don't see how making factually correct statements

Can be seen as being deceptive. Evasive maybe, but even then, judicial nominees really can't take stands on hypothetical future cases.

When Democratic nominees say they accept Heller and McDonald as precedent and that they know hunters and have a goddaughter who is an NRA member, I would not see it as being deceptive when they rule in favor of gun control or if they were to vote to overturn one of those previous decisions. Even if those answers were carefully crafted to appear neutral or even pro-2A.

These are people who carefully craft statements for a living and understand the precise language they use. Anyone who thinks they would slip up and commit perjury as some are claiming (not necessarily you) is really trying to stretch and twist their statements.

[Atticus]

21. My problem with them is illustrated by the language of your response: "carefully crafted to

appear"---to be something they were not; to hold an opinion which was not truly theirs.

And, if you think about it, there are many factually correct statements that are deceptive.

[Zeitghost]

32. I disagree

They were carefully crafted, like all judicial nominee statements, to not prejudice themselves on future cases.

[Polybius]

26. Amy didn't say any of that, the other two did

If you recall, she was the only one who refused to say it was precedent.

[smirkymonkey]

10. Isn't stating that you respect stare decisis basically admitting that you intend to rule any future

cases based upon precedent? I mean, it's not swearing on a fucking bible, but it is certainly intended to mislead on a very important matter.

[Zeitghost]

12. If the next Democratic nominee

states they will respect precedent, and then votes to overturns Dobbs, would they be lying? Or even misleading? Respecting precedent doesn't mean you must uphold every previous ruling you disagree with.

[smirkymonkey]

18. According to consensus in the legal profession, in order to overturn precedent you must present

new law and facts that have arisen since the decision was written which make that decision no longer applicable.

None of these justices have done so. What are they basing their decision upon? I mean, besides the rantings and insane dictates of some lunatic from 18th century England? [Alito]

[uponit7771]

24. Only if new facts regarding that law aren't presented and you know that or should

[Zeitghost]

31. I have not seen that encoded in federal law.

Could you point me toward a source for that?

[uponit7771]

33. Precedence does not have to be law and you should know that too

[Zeitghost]

34. Any constraints on the court

And how they ruled would need to be in the Constitution. You should definitely know that.

Judges are not constrained by stare decisis. There are guidelines, but not real constraints. That's another great thing for you to know.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. If you or I were to have found to have lied during a job interview we'd likely be fired.

If you or I lied testifying to Congress we could end up in jail.

How does one expect respect for the law when those in charge of the law do not have to follow the same standard?

[milestogo]

13. Don't they have to swear on a Bible?

[Demovictory9]

19. of course they did

[SYFROYH]

22. I think this is a silly position to take.

SCOTUS candidates from both the right and left parse their words carefully on key issues.

Plus even if they promised to vote a certain way they are free to change their minds.

[Atticus]

23. So, lying is ok because "everybody does it" and promises don't mean anything. Gotcha. nt

[Polybius]

27. Justice Kennedy wasn't always pro-gay marriage

I guarantee that if they had asked him if he would support gay marriage in 1986, he would have said no. So would he be a liar for changing his mind in 2014?

[Atticus]

28. The post to which I responded specifically involved a "promise". If Justice Kennedy had

promised not to vote in favor of gay marriage and then voted to allow it, he would have broken a promise.

I am not aware of any nominee ever making any promise about how they would vote. Voting in support of gay marriage may have been the last good thing he did before "conveniently" emptying a seat for Trump to fill with Kavanaugh.

[Polybius]

29. Kennedy also changed his mind about Roe

He was an 11th hour switch in 1992. He was much better than Roberts or even Sandra Day O'Connor. His finally year was unusually conservative though.

[NotTodayPutin]

30. Help me understand...

These shitbirds promised to uphold Roe?

Under oath?

How are they not being impeached?

The House should immediately bring articles of impeachment to the floor.

And like was said upthread... make the Rs vote to acquit on record.

[Zeitghost]

35. No justices promised to uphold Roe

On the left or right. No judicial nominee takes a stand one way or the other on any potential cases, it would prejudice them on future cases.

[NotTodayPutin]

36. That makes sense.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch the hearings of any the Justices mentioned..

And I've several opinions (outside of DU) and several shared here, as well as posters stating it with such conviction.... I basically accepted them at face value.

I'll be more open to ideas... while exercising a bit more critical thought in thr future.

[SYFROYH]

37. Changing your mind is not lying.

[uponit7771]

25. not on stare decisis