Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.

Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.

No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.

stare decisis

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, it is a principal, it says the previous standing is settled unless something is horribly wrong with the decision. It is ridiculous to say that Kavanaugh only meant that the law had stare decisis simply because it existed and was upheld. That'd effectively be crossing your fingers while telling a lie.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

That is true. What is ironic is that exactly your defense for the lying SCOTUS justices .

Believe as you wish, evidence not required.

That is your MO. Your defense of their mendacity is based solely on taking their responses out of context in order to justify your wishful thinking.

 

[Toni]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

That is true. What is ironic is that exactly your defense for the lying SCOTUS justices .

Believe as you wish, evidence not required.

That is your MO. Your defense of their mendacity is based solely on taking their responses out of context in order to justify your wishful thinking.

I'm pretty sure he gets all of his information from right wing media sites.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording? Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

If you are serious about that standard (as opposed to offering up anything to save face), there is no reason for anyone to waste their efforts in discussion over your religious viewpoint.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden wants to snip filibuster out of passing a bill to legislate a right to privacy.

“I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that,” he said in Madrid at a news conference marking the end of a six-day foreign trip focused on the war in Ukraine. “And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights; it should be — we provide an exception for this.”

Not pleased here with this solution as it would pretty much tear down the filibuster wall. GOP would say, 'well you guys did it for X so we'll do it for Y'.

It really sucks that the idea of a "right to privacy" is considered a partisan position, especially when conservatives/libertarians are allegedly for personal freedom. It is really perverse!

That said, Sen. Manchin and Sen. Sinema said this is a no-go. Sen. Sinema noted:

After a draft decision of the repeal leaked in May, Sinema responded by defending the filibuster, pointing to its use in the past by Democrats to prevent Republicans from instituting abortion restrictions.

“Protections in the Senate safeguarding against the erosion of women’s access to health care have been used half-a-dozen times in the past ten years, and are more important now than ever,” she said at the time, in a statement that an aide pointed to Thursday.

Like I noted, this is a double edge sword of epic failure potential. And what good is scorched Earth with the filibuster when SCOTUS in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision say the Federal Government has no say in the conversation?

 

[Jarhyn]

Biden wants to snip filibuster out of passing a bill to legislate a right to privacy.

“I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that,” he said in Madrid at a news conference marking the end of a six-day foreign trip focused on the war in Ukraine. “And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights; it should be — we provide an exception for this.”

Not pleased here with this solution as it would pretty much tear down the filibuster wall. GOP would say, 'well you guys did it for X so we'll do it for Y'.

It really sucks that the idea of a "right to privacy" is considered a partisan position, especially when conservatives/libertarians are allegedly for personal freedom. It is really perverse!

That said, Sen. Manchin and Sen. Sinema said this is a no-go. Sen. Sinema noted:

After a draft decision of the repeal leaked in May, Sinema responded by defending the filibuster, pointing to its use in the past by Democrats to prevent Republicans from instituting abortion restrictions.

“Protections in the Senate safeguarding against the erosion of women’s access to health care have been used half-a-dozen times in the past ten years, and are more important now than ever,” she said at the time, in a statement that an aide pointed to Thursday.

Like I noted, this is a double edge sword of epic failure potential. And what good is scorched Earth with the filibuster when SCOTUS in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision say the Federal Government has no say in the conversation?

They already did it for Y, and it's entirely possible to change the filibuster, to restore it to functionality once more.

 

[marc]

Not pleased here with this solution as it would pretty much tear down the filibuster wall. GOP would say, 'well you guys did it for X so we'll do it for Y'.

They pretty much already did that with McConnell's 'nuclear option' when they did it for supreme court nominees.

Honestly, when was the last time Democrats successfully filibustered anything? I can't remember a time when they didn't either back down or had the rules changed on them like in 2017 for supreme court nominees. I do remember the number of filibusters skyrocketing when Obama took office. So I'm fine with it being eliminated entirely so things can get done.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not pleased here with this solution as it would pretty much tear down the filibuster wall. GOP would say, 'well you guys did it for X so we'll do it for Y'.

They pretty much already did that with McConnell's 'nuclear option' when they did it for supreme court nominees.

Honestly, when was the last time Democrats successfully filibustered anything? I can't remember a time when they didn't either back down or had the rules changed on them like in 2017 for supreme court nominees. I do remember the number of filibusters skyrocketing when Obama took office. So I'm fine with it being eliminated entirely so things can get done.

ACA protection.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

You mean "no longer" a right. Because 50 years ago a court said that there was, and since then courts reaffirmed that.

 

[Patooka]

There is an Australian song that might explain Metaphors opinion:



Or maybe the song suggest something else. I don't know. I'm not a woman.

 

[Metaphor]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.

Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.

No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.

stare decisis

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, it is a principal, it says the previous standing is settled unless something is horribly wrong with the decision. It is ridiculous to say that Kavanaugh only meant that the law had stare decisis simply because it existed and was upheld. That'd effectively be crossing your fingers while telling a lie.

He said it because it was a decades old decision that had been reaffirmed a number of times, not because he thought the reasoning was solid and should be preserved.

Again, what the Senators wanted to ask was "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if the case came up". They didn't ask that and none of the questions they did ask were answered falsely.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

You mean "no longer" a right. Because 50 years ago a court said that there was, and since then courts reaffirmed that.

Well, yes. After Roe v Wade, but before it was overturned, it was a right.

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

No candidate for the Supreme Court would be free to engage in the last point, as Ginsburg and ACB pointed out. If Kavanaugh had said "Roe v Wade is settled law and has been reaffirmed many times," and then added "but I believe the original reasoning was wrong and I'd overturn it", he'd have committed a far worse sin than the alleged 'lie of omission'.

Do you wonder why no Senator ever asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if the case came up"? Because, I suspect, they either know or had legal advice that they could not ask such a question, so instead they attempted to ask the question anyway via circumlocution, and now AOC and other Democrat senators are butthurt.

If you are serious about that standard (as opposed to offering up anything to save face), there is no reason for anyone to waste their efforts in discussion over your religious viewpoint.

I am serious that it is demented to listen to what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB said in response to questions and conclude they 'lied under oath'.

Pretending these judges lied to Congress is a revenge fantasy.

 

[Jarhyn]

A robber shoots a person in front of a police officer.

The robber is responsible for shooting someone.

The police officer is responsible for not preventing it (except in the US because LOL!).

Not all responsibility for prevention lays on the person responsible for doing.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

Anyone familiar with these confirmation hearings and the stakes involved knows that either these nominees knew exactly what they were doing or they incredibly stupid. The odds of so many of them being incredibly stupid are too low to make that option believable.

So, one is left with the reasonable conclusion that they were deliberately mendacious. No one forced them to use the phrasing they did. Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Pretending these justices did not lie is demented. Claiming that a right to abortion did not exist after Roe v Wade is delusional.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find it extremely telling about the character of a person when someone defends an answer to a question of clear intent, to discern a legal stance on a concern in a confirmation hearing especially, when it is clear that the answer was given to make the person hearing it believe a particular thing that is not true.

It is not a mistake.

It is bad faith, either way, and being tricky about it does not idemnify you. It condemns you further.

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

Anyone familiar with these confirmation hearings and the stakes involved knows that either these nominees knew exactly what they were doing or they incredibly stupid. The odds of so many of them being incredibly stupid are too low to make that option believable.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

So, one is left with the reasonable conclusion that they were deliberately mendacious.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Pretending these justices did not lie is demented. Claiming that a right to abortion did not exist after Roe v Wade is delusional.

They never made that claim. In fact, they recognised that Roe v Wade created the right (if they thought it was bad legal reasoning) or that Roe v Wade discovered the right (if they thought it was good legal reasoning).

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it extremely telling about the character of a person when someone defends an answer to a question of clear intent, to discern a legal stance on a concern in a confirmation hearing especially, when it is clear that the answer was given to make the person hearing it believe a particular thing that is not true.

It is not a mistake.

It is bad faith, either way, and being tricky about it does not idemnify you. It condemns you further.

"A question of clear intent".

Non. They answered the questions put to them truthfully, and if you thought questions meant something other than they meant, that's on you.

No senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if you could". They didn't ask because that question would be improper, and if asked, no candidate should have answered.

I find it telling that you assume things not in evidence and are willing to let your revenge boner smother any sense of reason.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

Wrong on all counts.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Your reasons are crapola.

They never made that claim.

Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

Why bring her into it other than to feed a need to make a misogynistic swipe at her. BTW, I am not impressed with or by her at all,

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

Wrong on all counts.

Sure luv.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Your reasons are crapola.

Sure luv.

They never made that claim.

Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.

Then why did you mention it at all?

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

Why bring her into it other than to feed a need to make a misogynistic swipe at her. BTW, I am not impressed with or by her at all,

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.