To think that SCOTUS nominees can LIE under oath

[dutch508]

Star Member usaf-vet (4,743 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216651950

This is such a depressing day. To think that SCOTUS nominees can LIE under oath during
.... their Congressional hearings by declaring that they believe in stare decisis and will respect it.

Knowing that they will ignore it and overturn Roe v Wade given a chance.
Conservative nominees should never be trusted to tell the truth.
They go to the court with an agenda and the hell with all else once seated.

Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make its decision in alignment with the previous court's decision.

 

FBaggins (24,238 posts)

1. All nominees give essentially the same answer on stare decisis

They'll all say that it's a critically important concept and that existing rulings should be respected in almost all cases - but they'll also all say that badly-decided prior cases should be overturned.

Star Member lark (20,243 posts)

3. impeach Kavarape and Comey Barrett.

Both had provable lies to Congress and can be removed for that. Dems are too cowardly, but this is what needs to be done or else America is gone.

Polybius (9,143 posts)

4. Did any straight-up say they would not vote to overturn Roe?

Saying "it's precedent" and then voting to overturn it technically isn't lying.

 

Star Member pwb (8,307 posts)

5. Separation of church and state does not exist anymore

if these judges are influenced by their beliefs. Our Supreme Court in plain sight giving our Constitution the finger. **** me.

Zeitghost (1,219 posts)

6. And liberal Justices say the same

Regarding rulings like Heller and McDonald but would likely vote to overturn them. Saying you respect stare decisis and swearing to uphold every ruling made by the court are two seperate things.

 

[SVPete]

Star Member usaf-vet (4,743 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216651950

This is such a depressing day. To think that SCOTUS nominees can LIE under oath during
.... their Congressional hearings by declaring that they believe in stare decisis and will respect it.

So Plessy vs. Ferguson should not have been overturned? How racist of you!

[USA4ME]

The other term they misrepresent is “settled law” as though that means that particular law is set in stone forever. If that’s the case, then Dred Scott v. Sandford was settled law, and I don’t see any of them arguing that being the case.

.

[CollectivismMustDie]

I know, right?

As if brown-jackson doesn't know the definition of woman...

PUH-LEEZE.


 

[enslaved1]

Star Member lark (20,243 posts)

3. impeach Kavarape and Comey Barrett.

Both had provable lies to Congress and can be removed for that. Dems are too cowardly, but this is what needs to be done or else America is gone.

Exactly what is the DUmp claiming was lied about?  I'm seeing the accusation fly in several threads brought over, but not noticing specifics, which is SOP for the moonbats. 

[SVPete]

Exactly what is the DUmp claiming was lied about?  I'm seeing the accusation fly in several threads brought over, but not noticing specifics, which is SOP for the moonbats.

DUmmies still believe Justice Thomas whatevered Anita Hill and that Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist. Therefore denying those false accusations was lying under oath, in DUmmies' opinion. Basically, both are guilty even if proven innocent.