General Discussion

Atticus

(15,124 posts)

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

Fri May 6, 2022, 04:39 PM

May 2022

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."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Every damn Trump SCOTUS appointee lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings [View all] Atticus May 2022 OP

agree w/you on all four points. GDMF lying SOBs (and B) CurtEastPoint May 2022 #1

If only republicons could be made to face consequences for their crimes. FoxNewsSucks May 2022 #2

There is no code of ethics for the Extreme Court. If we can up our Senate members in diane in sf May 2022 #3

So did both Bushes' appointees. But not a damn thing will happen. nt Carlitos Brigante May 2022 #4

This inthewind21 May 2022 #5

Nowhere did I say or imply that. nt Atticus May 2022 #7

No, they didn't Zeitghost May 2022 #6

Where in my OP did I say they "promised to uphold" Roe? I said they "lied about their views on Roe" Atticus May 2022 #8

Claiming they lied Zeitghost May 2022 #11

They lied. fightforfreedom May 2022 #14

More parsing. I thought maybe this is what "stare decisis" meant" Atticus May 2022 #15

Then any Democratic nominee Zeitghost May 2022 #16

As you well know, of course prior decisions can be overruled. But, we are not talking about Atticus May 2022 #17

I don't see how making factually correct statements Zeitghost May 2022 #20

My problem with them is illustrated by the language of your response: "carefully crafted to Atticus May 2022 #21

I disagree Zeitghost May 2022 #32

Amy didn't say any of that, the other two did Polybius May 2022 #26

Isn't stating that you respect stare decisis basically admitting that you intend to rule any future smirkymonkey May 2022 #10

If the next Democratic nominee Zeitghost May 2022 #12

According to consensus in the legal profession, in order to overturn precedent you must present smirkymonkey May 2022 #18

Only if new facts regarding that law aren't presented and you know that or should uponit7771 May 2022 #24

I have not seen that encoded in federal law. Zeitghost May 2022 #31

Precedence does not have to be law and you should know that too uponit7771 May 2022 #33

Any constraints on the court Zeitghost May 2022 #34

If you or I were to have found to have lied during a job interview we'd likely be fired. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2022 #9

Don't they have to swear on a Bible? milestogo May 2022 #13

of course they did Demovictory9 May 2022 #19

I think this is a silly position to take. SYFROYH May 2022 #22

So, lying is ok because "everybody does it" and promises don't mean anything. Gotcha. nt Atticus May 2022 #23

Justice Kennedy wasn't always pro-gay marriage Polybius May 2022 #27

The post to which I responded specifically involved a "promise". If Justice Kennedy had Atticus May 2022 #28

Kennedy also changed his mind about Roe Polybius May 2022 #29

Help me understand... NotTodayPutin May 2022 #30

No justices promised to uphold Roe Zeitghost May 2022 #35

That makes sense. NotTodayPutin May 2022 #36

Changing your mind is not lying. SYFROYH May 2022 #37

not on stare decisis uponit7771 May 2022 #25