• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,904
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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.
Metaphor said:
"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.

Metaphor said:
They never made that claim.
Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.


Metaphor said:
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

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
Metaphor said:
"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.
Metaphor said:
They never made that claim.
Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.
Then why did you mention it at all?

Metaphor said:
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.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,137
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Metaphor said:
Then why did you mention it at all?
Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,


Metaphor said:
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.
No one said it did. But don’t try again.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Metaphor said:
Then why did you mention it at all?
Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,
I made no delusional claims.

Metaphor said:
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.
No one said it did. But don’t try again.
You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,745
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,136
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Metaphor said:
Then why did you mention it at all?
Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,
I made no delusional claims.

Metaphor said:
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.
No one said it did. But don’t try again.
You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.
Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?
 
Top Bottom