Kavanaugh and Barret are liars!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Well, I did not know they were liars, I took them for honest people.
You keep forgetting that Republicans are hypocrites and liars.
cawacko
Well-known member
Ok? I wasn't the one who said Trump dropped the ball appointing them or that they would turn out liberal.
They were the ones who said they won't overturn Roe v Wade. So blame them.
I took them at their word, didn’t know they would lie under oath.
No way, they are conservatives.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm not an attorney and don't pretend to play one but saw this posted and it makes certain sense:
"Nobody ever comments on how they’ll decide cases during nomination hearings anymore. Simply noting that something is precedent doesn’t mean they would never find reason to overturn it if it was decided wrongly."
"Nobody ever comments on how they’ll decide cases during nomination hearings anymore. Simply noting that something is precedent doesn’t mean they would never find reason to overturn it if it was decided wrongly."
Who said that?
cawacko
Well-known member
A couple of attorney's on the Rivals board were having a discussion on the topic and one of them said it.
Did they say anything about lying under oath?
Let me be on record saying that I have no problem with lowering the limit from 26 weeks to 20.
cawacko
Well-known member
Actually here's the other guy responding:
Yeah no one ever ever ever says their opinion on anything or how they'd rule in a particular case. Saying "[so and so controversial case] is a precedent worthy of respect" is in no way equivalent to saying "I will not overrule that case." It's a stupid con to pretend otherwise.
If that's accurate then that's weasel words. They're lawyers so they're good at that.
Stringfellow Hawk
Member
How did they lie, neither one can overturn it alone
cawacko
Well-known member
I hope I'm not violating any rules by posting this here but yeah, I asked that question. The response:
No they didn't "lie under oath." Saying something is precedent is a factual statement; literally any Supreme Court opinion that hasn't been overturned is "precedent." Shit, Buck v. Bell is a "precedent" insofar as it has never been overturned, and it is generally considered to be one of the worst opinions the Court ever released (albeit fantastically written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his usual pithy style). If one of them had said "I will not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade (which no one would ever have said during a confirmation hearing)," then they would have lied.
They all stated that Roe and Casey were precedents of the Court worthy of respect. The draft opinion spends a long time analyzing how much respect and the competing interests in whether or not to overturn them. They did their duty and exactly what they said, and there is literally zero argument otherwise.
I don't think they said that. Like most nominees, they did not give any information about how they would vote on specific cases. They basically say nothing important.
Didn't Kaverynaughty say that Roe v Wade is a settled law?