SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[Oleg]

Their answers, specifically that the law was "settled", rather than "settled wrongly" are where the lie comes from.

ACB told Klobuchar that ROE was not a “super precedent” because calls to overrule never ceased.

 

[Metaphor]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

Then it is not "settled" it is "settled wrongly". Not including the "wrongly" does not deliver an accurate perspective on its "settledness".

Just because you really want access to the power to lie without it being called a lie does not change the lie of omission that is created when someone drops contextually important words.

Why did no Senator in any public hearing ask:

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

Had Kavanaugh, ACB, etc been asked that and said 'No', I can see how they could be regarded as having lied.

Nobody asked that, though. Why not?

Here's my theory: they were not asked because it would be improper to ask them, and their proxy questions are asking something different.

Their answers, specifically that the law was "settled", rather than "settled wrongly" are where the lie comes from. Their statement, and not the question asked, is sufficient to provide that they thought the matter settled, rather than settled wrongly.

Settled law is about how many cases and how long a decision has stood. There's some subjectivity to how many cases and how old a decision needs to be to warrant the descriptor. 'Settled wrongly' is not a separate category; it's something you've manufactured from whole cloth. Something can be settled law and it can be settled wrongly.

Trying to mince words and figure out clever seeming ways to place a falsehood in someone else's reasoning is still lying.

It won't earn you respect except by people who glorify in getting away with telling lies, or trying to mislead others about your intents, and there are enough people capable of observing that if folks fuck around, they're standing a good chance of finding out.

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

 

[Toni]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

Then it is not "settled" it is "settled wrongly". Not including the "wrongly" does not deliver an accurate perspective on its "settledness".

Just because you really want access to the power to lie without it being called a lie does not change the lie of omission that is created when someone drops contextually important words.

Why did no Senator in any public hearing ask:

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

Had Kavanaugh, ACB, etc been asked that and said 'No', I can see how they could be regarded as having lied.

Nobody asked that, though. Why not?

Here's my theory: they were not asked because it would be improper to ask them, and their proxy questions are asking something different.

No candidate for Supreme Court oils ever indicate how they would rule on any case fitting a particular scenario. Nor should they.

However it is important t to understand that all justices and all courts interpret the law through a judicial philosophy or point of view.

With respect to Roe, it is clear that some judicial candidates couched their responses to questions in a way that allowed senators to believe or to claim to believe they thought that the candidate was clearly supporting *this* interpretation—or to claim to hold that belief.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which justice lied?

'X is settled law' does not equal 'I believe the law was decided correctly and if the same case were before me, I'd settle it the same way'. Nor is the US Supreme Court legally bound to never overturn precedent.

Judges did not 'lie under oath' simply because you don't understand what stare decisis means and what it entails.

If it's settled law they shouldn't have revisited it in the first place.

It absolutely should be if the Court believes it was settled wrongly.

No. Settled law = let it stand.

Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts. The US Supreme Court is not bound by its own precedent, no matter how long the precedent has stood. In fact, SCOTUS has overturned precedent dozens of times, whether those precedents were considered settled law or not.

This is grossly oversimplified to the point of nonsense, as precedence is really the most important part of American Constitutional Law. Without adherence to precedence, the law becomes amorphous, unpredictable, and highly arbitrary.

That's the nature of law. If it were not, we wouldn't need Courts at all, except to determine findings of fact.

WTF?! That has got to be the worst reply I've seen in a while.

Metaphor: Meh, precedence.
Me: W/o precedence law becomes unstable.
Metaphor: That's the nature of law.

FUCK!

There is no law of rule indicating that SCOTUS has to abide by stare decisis, but that principle is a bedrock principle of American Constitutional law. To handwave this away is to expose one's gross ignorance on SCOTUS and how the law is examined in this country for nearly 250 years.

Who suggested 'doing away with it'?

I might need to stand corrected with my statement above. Where did I suggest someone said some did.

There is a test to determine whether a case with stare decisis can be over-ruled. This usually requires something of huge substantial influence... not merely there were enough votes to overrule it on the court. Nothing changed between Alito or Kavanaugh or Gorsuch getting confirmed. The application of the law, the national view on the procedure, it was as it ever was. So for a Judge to say something was stare decisis then, really needed to remain stare decisis now. We don't have 100 years of blatant discrimination and clearly unequal treatment between Plessy and Brown. They lied, they knew exactly what they would do.

Whether you think the legal reasoning was wrong does not mean they lied.

Except that the issues they would find in Roe and Casey, "the nature of their error, the quality of their reasoning, the ‘workability’ of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance.” were all "issues" that existed during their nomination process and weren't things that recently came to light.

To say then that Roe/Casey were Stare Decisis, but to then say the above reasons are why Roe and Casey are wrong... is a fucking lie. That isn't disagreeing with their logic... though there are mountains of things to disagree with... it recognizing their miraculous epiphany regarding issues with Roe and Casey that they didn't see prior to their nomination, and more importantly spoke of specifically not existing!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their answers, specifically that the law was "settled", rather than "settled wrongly" are where the lie comes from.

ACB told Klobuchar that ROE was not a “super precedent” because calls to overrule never ceased.

Everyone knew Barrett would vote to kill Roe/Griswold/Brown (?). That wasn't remotely a secret.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

Heh. There’s no proof, only hearsay.

There is evidence.

But if Kennedy asked Alito for assurance on ROE, then voted against his confirmation, Alito would be in the clear to say, “Well, fuck you, too.”

WTF? Lying is lying.

 

[Oleg]

Their answers, specifically that the law was "settled", rather than "settled wrongly" are where the lie comes from.

ACB told Klobuchar that ROE was not a “super precedent” because calls to overrule never ceased.

Everyone knew Barrett would vote to kill Roe/Griswold/Brown (?). That wasn't remotely a secret.

Ditto. We already knew how these justices would rule on hot button issues when they were nominated. Being surprised they voted as we expected they would is, um, surprising.

 

[Oleg]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

Heh. There’s no proof, only hearsay.

There is evidence.

But if Kennedy asked Alito for assurance on ROE, then voted against his confirmation, Alito would be in the clear to say, “Well, fuck you, too.”

WTF? Lying is lying.

So Kennedy lied to Alito about supporting him? Well, I’d expect no less from the Chappaquiddick murderer.

 

[laughing dog]

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

Nope, but a nominee could say that believe in stare decis unless a case was decided wrongly as Jarhyn pointed out. So, employing your standard of what people should have said, the nominees in question lied by omission. Now, if you think that standard is inapplicable or stupid, you should understand that it applies to your response as well.

 

[Oleg]

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So you really can’t say they lied.

 

[laughing dog]

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So you really can’t say they lied.

From the evidence, Alito lied to Kennedy. The others were deliberately vague in order to mislead some of the more trusting senators.

 

[laughing dog]

Moreover, it is quite possible that in private meetings with individual Senators, those nominees may have lied. There is a NYT report that Mr. Alito lied to Senator Kennedy during his nomination process (Alito assured Kennedy of respect for Roe V Wade

Alito was confirmed 58-42. Kennedy didn't vote for him. So what does it matter what you think he told Kennedy?

There is a dispute whether Alito, Gorusch, Kennedy and Barrett lied during their confirmation hearings. I produced evidence that Alito lied.

Heh. There’s no proof, only hearsay.

There is evidence.

But if Kennedy asked Alito for assurance on ROE, then voted against his confirmation, Alito would be in the clear to say, “Well, fuck you, too.”

WTF? Lying is lying.

So Kennedy lied to Alito about supporting him?

Do you have any evidence that Kennedy told Alito that he would support him? If so, you have point. If not, you have your usual nothing.

BTW, I happen to think Mr. Kennedy should have done hard time for his role in the death of Ms Kopechne.

 

[Metaphor]

Will you overturn Roe v Wade if a suitable case comes up?

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So, proxy questions are asked instead. I get it. But a proxy question answer cannot be treated as if it was the real question's answer. Because it's not.

The people who did not ask the above question, when that is what they wanted to know, are the ones mincing words.

Nope, but a nominee could say that believe in stare decis unless a case was decided wrongly as Jarhyn pointed out. So, employing your standard of what people should have said, the nominees in question lied by omission.

Non. In fact, you point out that nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. That seems proper to me. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled correctly is indicating how they would vote. Saying something is stare decisis and they think it was settled incorrectly is indicating how they would vote. So, they answer the question put to them and don't indicate how they would vote.

Time is running out to impeach those judges. Write to your member of Congress!

 

[Oleg]

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So you really can’t say they lied.

From the evidence, Alito lied to Kennedy. The others were deliberately vague in order to mislead some of the more trusting senators.

So do we go with open sworn testimony to Congress or hearsay of what was said behind closed doors?

 

[laughing dog]

During the confirmation process, nominees do not indicate how they will vote on a question. They simply sidestep the issue with a statement akin to "It is improper for me to indicate how I would vote without hearing the case". So no one asks the question above.

So you really can’t say they lied.

From the evidence, Alito lied to Kennedy. The others were deliberately vague in order to mislead some of the more trusting senators.

So do we go with open sworn testimony to Congress or hearsay of what was said behind closed doors?

"Hearsay" is evidence. Whether or not someone chooses to accept it is reliable or valid is up to them. But the open testimony is incontrovertible in this instance - the nominees were deliberately vague in order to mislead more trusting senators.

 

[Oleg]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

 

[laughing dog]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded.

In a court of law. We are not in a court of law.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

 

[Elixir]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

But he checked. Maybe he’ll tell us where he checked?

 

[Shadowy Man]

"Hearsay" is evidence.

Which is pretty much always excluded. And an error. I checked and it appears the questioning by the Senate is not under oath.

Really?

I don’t see his hand on a bible so I don’t think it counts.