The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Mary Ann on October 12, 2018, 10:54:53 AM
-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211271969
Those sly DUmmies! They've cleverly set a PERJURY trap for Kavanaugh! This is the end, I tell you!! The END!
ChoppinBroccoli (2,824 posts)
Do We Now Have A "Perjury Trap" Set For Kavanaugh?
I was thinking about this the other day when I read an article about how Democrats may try to impeach Kavanaugh if they take back Congress. They already have all the obvious instances of perjury that have been discussed on this board over the last couple of months, but I thought of another.
If Kavanaugh has testified under oath that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," (and I don't know if this is just a statement he made or if it was actual testimony under oath), then doesn't that mean that if a case to reverse Roe v. Wade comes before the Supreme Court and he votes to reverse, he has just committed perjury? And if that's true, shouldn't we be reminding him of this when the case to reverse Roe v. Wade inevitably comes before the Supreme Court?
If he has testified under oath that Roe v. Wade is settled law, then we can either successfully tie his hands and essentially coerce him into voting FOR upholding Roe v. Wade through threat of impeachment, or we can actually impeach him if he doesn't. Oh, I'm sure he'll find some way to weasel out of it (i.e. "I changed my mind based on the facts presented in this specific case," blah blah blah), but it might be a nice Ace in the hole to pressure him with. That's if he testified under oath.
It's hard to believe, but someone who refers to himself as "Choppin Broccoli" has figured out how to take down a Yale law grad who has been a federal judge for 12 years. The vast, untapped talent among the geniuses at Democratic Underground is mind-boggling.
-
Are they aware that prior to slavery being abolished or during the days of prohibition that a USSC nominee could rightly say that slavery and prohibition were "settled law" and yet still be opposed to and willing to overturn both? It seems not.
.
-
That one's too stupid, and for too many different reasons, to even try to explain. I could write a 3-5 page legal analysis memo of just how FUBAR this is.
-
Plessy vs. Ferguson was "settled law" for 5 or 6 decades. Stare decisis isn't absolute.
-
ChoppinBroccoli (2,824 posts)
Do We Now Have A "Perjury Trap" Set For Kavanaugh?
I was thinking about this the other day when I read an article about how Democrats may try to impeach Kavanaugh if they take back Congress. They already have all the obvious instances of perjury that have been discussed on this board over the last couple of months, but I thought of another.
If Kavanaugh has testified under oath that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," (and I don't know if this is just a statement he made or if it was actual testimony under oath), then doesn't that mean that if a case to reverse Roe v. Wade comes before the Supreme Court and he votes to reverse, he has just committed perjury? And if that's true, shouldn't we be reminding him of this when the case to reverse Roe v. Wade inevitably comes before the Supreme Court?
If he has testified under oath that Roe v. Wade is settled law, then we can either successfully tie his hands and essentially coerce him into voting FOR upholding Roe v. Wade through threat of impeachment, or we can actually impeach him if he doesn't. Oh, I'm sure he'll find some way to weasel out of it (i.e. "I changed my mind based on the facts presented in this specific case," blah blah blah), but it might be a nice Ace in the hole to pressure him with. That's if he testified under oath.
Justice Kavanaugh evolved. End of story.
Worked for Obummer and Hellary.
-
settled for now DUmmy. Doesn't mean it can be looked at later if circumstances change.
-
I suppose it would depend on what his definition of "settled law" is.
-
Ha HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
KC
-
"I was thinking ..." I stopped reading right there .. DUmmies never think
-
Why is everybody waiting around for Ruth Bader Ginsberg to kick the bucket when all we have to do to get rid of her is impeach her?
-
Plessy vs. Ferguson was "settled law" for 5 or 6 decades. Stare decisis isn't absolute.
Ya, beat me to it. I don't expect a fundamental sea change WRT Roe V Wade; but some fiddling with the edges.
-
That one's too stupid, and for too many different reasons, to even try to explain. I could write a 3-5 page legal analysis memo of just how FUBAR this is.
God save us from that...
Their obsession with explaining precedence to the world last month was quite enough already... and then again this month with their conveniently modified use of innocence presumption. One can only absorb a certain amount of their idiocy before shutting down.
Thing is (from my non-expert viewpoint), as much as we all bust on it sometimes, US law is grounded in common sense and civility about 98% of the time. Meaning, a person of civil and fair nature can look at an argument and come to a reasonable basic conclusion that will align with written law most times, all while knowing very little about written law itself. This concept appears to escape their tiny pinko minds. Like everything else within the reach of their inferior brains, law is just a tool that can be re-forged at will to further assist their quest for power and control, and it means nothing more than that to them.