Would love to see a 6 months probation period for purjury after Senate hearings for the SC!

[bluestarone]

THREE would be REMOVED right now!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. How do you prove perjury?

All they have to say is that their views have "evolved" since their confirmation hearing, so, how does that work?

[bluestarone]

2. I'm thinking just using their own words against them

The did say, Roe vs Wade law of the land?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. Yes they did,

but that doesn't change the fact that they can say their views have changed since their confirmation hearings.

You and I know they're lying, but knowing and proving are two different things.

As said by Denzel Washington in the movie Training Day, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove, and I don't see how that's proven.

[bluestarone]

6. Maybe ask smarter questions?

Gotta be a way to trap these yahoos!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. I feel your frustrations,

but I just don't think that perjury can be proven.

[bluestarone]

9. Very frustrated for sure! (i'm actually sure you're right) BUT

DAM, they are religious lying SOB'S! We ALL know it!

[jimfields33]

3. So true.

I can understand this being brought up last week but it’s been explained that they carefully worded their answers to a way to not have perjured themselves. They are lawyers afterall. If we keep this up no Supreme Court justice will even answer a question.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Exactly right. nt

[elleng]

8. Perjury'the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having

taken an oath or affirmation.'

Didn't happen, they stated their opinions on the meanings of previous Court decisions, and the likelihood they would be maintained.

[bluestarone]

10. ...

Frustrating, but i guess you're all right.

[Bev54]

11. They are all past a 6 month probationary time line.

[Hamlette]

12. yeah, and there is that

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Why 6 months? Lies under oath are forgiven after 6 months? WTF?

Lies under oath are lies.

[MichMan]

14. Do we really want judges to say their minds are made up before they even hear a case?

Regardless of the specifics, evidence, and arguments?


I dont believe they would be allowed to say anything like that. I know they wouldn't let anyone on a jury who said they already decided how they would rule.