SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

We've been through this, ld. Nothing in their public statements is misleading, and nothing about what they said, and what happened, is in conflict. The nominees were asked questions and the questions were answered. Of all the justices, I believe ACB was asked the most direct question, and she refused to say how she would decide such a case.

What any person said in private to Senator Collins I do not know and cannot verify.

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

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

What may or may not have happened behind closed doors I do not know. I do know that there are things I sincerely believed in 2005 that I no longer believe in 2022. People sometimes change their minds.

 

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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'.

Actually, it does. It indicates that something of significance has to change in order to consider the law no longer a precedent.

No. The two things are not equal. The following is an imagined conversation. To be clear, this never happened.

Senator: Do you think Roe v Wade is settled law?
Nominee: Yes.
Senator: And would you overturn it?
Nominee: Yes.

No Senator asked the second question. I suspect no Senator asked because it would be wrong to ask and they have been instructed they could not ask such a question.

So instead, the Senators asked the first question and they pretended they'd received an answer to the second.

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

You have proven you have no idea what you are talking about. It literally means to leave stand as decided!

I know what it means.

 

[laughing dog]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

We've been through this, ld.

And yet, you persist in promoting a false narrative.

Nothing in their public statements is misleading, and nothing about what they said, and what happened, is in conflict. The nominees were asked questions and the questions were answered. Of all the justices, I believe ACB was asked the most direct question, and she refused to say how she would decide such a case.

What any person said in private to Senator Collins I do not know and cannot verify.

Susan Collins believes she was mislead. Since she was more intimately involved with the nomination process than you, her position is more believable than some pedantic driven defense that boggles the mind.

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

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

What may or may not have happened behind closed doors I do not know. I do know that there are things I sincerely believed in 2005 that I no longer believe in 2022. People sometimes change their minds.

So, that makes Mr. Alito a liar in 2005. His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood which suggests Mr. Alito cannot be trusted with telling the truth.

Of course, the dishonesty of those justices is really a non-issue since they are on the court and are likely to remain on the court for a long time.

 

[Oleg]

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

So the purpose of Affirmative Action is just to advance racial spoils? If it's purpose is not to assist the disadvantaged, then it really should be held unconstitutional.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

Asian and Whites with high scores are less likely than those with low scores to be accepted.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

Are you just denying that the non-Asian and Non-Whites who are accepted are mostly from high income families? Those kids in the innercity with the crime ridden schools; fuck 'em, right?

Why are you taking the word of the plaintiffs in this case instead of using independant research? The plaintiffs are willing to skew anything they can to win their case.

Oh lawd! You’re saying the data they cite wasn’t produced by Harvard during discovery? Sure hope Harvard’s lawyer pointed that out to Court. So unethical!

 

[Metaphor]

When the Supreme Court issues its opinions on these two cases

Lol! Like we don’t already know how corrupt the Gini Thomas court is …

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt. That we've long known how the justices viewed these issues is irrelevant. Brilliant.

Four of them lied their asses off to get onto the court. Five if you include thomas.

Perhaps these Justices can be impeached, if their lying is so blatant and obvious.

Is Congress sitting? Democrats only have a week or so left controlling the House. They need to get the wheels in motion!

 

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

We've been through this, ld.

And yet, you persist in promoting a false narrative.

Nothing in their public statements is misleading, and nothing about what they said, and what happened, is in conflict. The nominees were asked questions and the questions were answered. Of all the justices, I believe ACB was asked the most direct question, and she refused to say how she would decide such a case.

What any person said in private to Senator Collins I do not know and cannot verify.

Susan Collins believes she was mislead. Since she was more intimately involved with the nomination process than you, her position is more believable than some pedantic driven defense that boggles the mind.'

I believe she believes she was misled. She is the final arbiter of her subjective experience.

That does not mean anybody lied to her or misled her.

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

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

What may or may not have happened behind closed doors I do not know. I do know that there are things I sincerely believed in 2005 that I no longer believe in 2022. People sometimes change their minds.

So, that makes Mr. Alito a liar in 2005.

No. Changing your mind, if that's what Alito did, does not make you a liar.

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood which suggests Mr. Alito cannot be trusted with telling the truth.

Of course, the dishonesty of those justices is really a non-issue since they are on the court and are likely to remain on the court for a long time.

The House could have impeached them, if these lies were so blatant and obvious. There will be time in the future to do it, I suppose, when Democrats hold Congress again.

 

[Oleg]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

 

[Oleg]

The House could have impeached them, if these lies were so blatant and obvious.

The new Justice said she didn’t know what a woman was. Either she’s an idiot or a liar.

 

[Oleg]

That is your naked opinion and has not been demonstrated. Pls stop pissing on us and telling us it’s raining

So the purpose of Affirmative Action is just to advance racial spoils? If it's purpose is not to assist the disadvantaged, then it really should be held unconstitutional.

So what? So do most whites admitted.

Asian and Whites with high scores are less likely than those with low scores to be accepted.

Uh … if it was truly “for the elite”, then it WOULD be based on family income or wealth. Try to make sense just a little bit, son.

Are you just denying that the non-Asian and Non-Whites who are accepted are mostly from high income families? Those kids in the innercity with the crime ridden schools; fuck 'em, right?

I keep forgetting that the collegiate system in the United States is limited to Harvard, the only college or university in the United States of America.

Okay. Sure. No other college or university practices Affirmative Action. Got it. Wink, wink.

 

[ZiprHead]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

Never heard of the right to privacy?

 

[Oleg]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

Never heard of the right to privacy?

Which isn’t in the Constitution.

 

[Metaphor]

The House could have impeached them, if these lies were so blatant and obvious.

The new Justice said she didn’t know what a woman was. Either she’s an idiot or a liar.

There will be a US Supreme Court case in the future (and I reckon sooner rather than later) where the definition of 'woman' will be a substantial question before the Court. It could be a tactical decision on KBJ's part to have refused to answer without making her a liar or an idiot. (Though she does seem to have been startled by the question so it does not seem like she anticipated being asked it).

 

[laughing dog]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

There are plenty of things are that are not directly in the Constitution, yet they are found to be constitutional. For example, no where in the Constitution is there an unconditional right to bear arms for individuals. Nor is there anywhere in the Constitution that free speech includes money spent on promoting free speech, but here we are.

 

[Oleg]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

There are plenty of things are that are not directly in the Constitution, yet they are found to be constitutional. For example, no where in the Constitution is there an unconditional right to bear arms for individuals. Nor is there anywhere in the Constitution that free speech includes money spent on promoting free speech, but here we are.

That’s not helping. Gun ownership and speech are in the Constitution, allowing for argument and analogy. There’s nothing, anywhere, remotely tangential to abortion.

 

[Shadowy Man]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

Never heard of the right to privacy?

Which isn’t in the Constitution.

Doesn’t need to be. The Constitution itself doesn’t claim to be inclusive of all rights.

 

[Oleg]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

Never heard of the right to privacy?

Which isn’t in the Constitution.

Doesn’t need to be. The Constitution itself doesn’t claim to be inclusive of all rights.

Of course not. I totally agree! But if you’re relying on the federal constitution to validate a right, it’s better be there.

 

[ZiprHead]

His opinion in the abortion case is filled with falsehood

At the risk of being OT, what falsehood? ROE wasn’t based on anything other than judicial fiat.

Never heard of the right to privacy?

Which isn’t in the Constitution.

Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment. Both deal with a right to privavcy.

 

[laughing dog]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

We've been through this, ld.

And yet, you persist in promoting a false narrative.

Nothing in their public statements is misleading, and nothing about what they said, and what happened, is in conflict. The nominees were asked questions and the questions were answered. Of all the justices, I believe ACB was asked the most direct question, and she refused to say how she would decide such a case.

What any person said in private to Senator Collins I do not know and cannot verify.

Susan Collins believes she was mislead. Since she was more intimately involved with the nomination process than you, her position is more believable than some pedantic driven defense that boggles the mind.'

I believe she believes she was misled. She is the final arbiter of her subjective experience.

That does not mean anybody lied to her or misled her.

It does when one views what was actually said. Moreover, if I have to pick between someone who relays their experience vs an ideologue pedaling pendantic swill, I'll pick the person with experience.

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

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

What may or may not have happened behind closed doors I do not know. I do know that there are things I sincerely believed in 2005 that I no longer believe in 2022. People sometimes change their minds.

So, that makes Mr. Alito a liar in 2005.

No. Changing your mind, if that's what Alito did, does not make you a liar.

Prove he didn't change his mind.

 

[Metaphor]

If an opinion doesn't go the way you want, the Court must be corrupt

Projection. That is a hallmark of Republicans, straight up. Their core platform is “the only way we can lose is if it’s rigged”. They actually SAY that. It’s the core premise of their (your?) whole dishonest method of attaining and retaining power.
The ACTUAL corruption of the SC is evident in the wife of one trying to overthrow a free and fair election, and her husband lying about what he knew about her. Just as the three Trump “justices” lied under oath about Stare Decisis and “settled law ”.
Previous courts have made decisions wth which I disagreed and I never thought them corrupt. But this one is.

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.

FFS, those nominees were deliberately misleading. They knew exactly what they were doing. And we know that at least one Senator (Senator Collins of Maine) has publicly acknowledged her "surprise" ( Collins surprised she was lied to by nominees )

We've been through this, ld.

And yet, you persist in promoting a false narrative.

Nothing in their public statements is misleading, and nothing about what they said, and what happened, is in conflict. The nominees were asked questions and the questions were answered. Of all the justices, I believe ACB was asked the most direct question, and she refused to say how she would decide such a case.

What any person said in private to Senator Collins I do not know and cannot verify.

Susan Collins believes she was mislead. Since she was more intimately involved with the nomination process than you, her position is more believable than some pedantic driven defense that boggles the mind.'

I believe she believes she was misled. She is the final arbiter of her subjective experience.

That does not mean anybody lied to her or misled her.

It does when one views what was actually said.

I don't know what was said in these private conversations. Are there recordings, written correspondence?

Moreover, if I have to pick between someone who relays their experience vs an ideologue pedaling pendantic swill, I'll pick the person with experience.

Who said you had to "pick"?

"I don't know what was said in that private conversation so I don't know if Senator Collins was actually lied to/misled" is not an ideological position, unless expressing the obvious is an ideology. Nor is what I said somehow in conflict with what Collins said.

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

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

What may or may not have happened behind closed doors I do not know. I do know that there are things I sincerely believed in 2005 that I no longer believe in 2022. People sometimes change their minds.

So, that makes Mr. Alito a liar in 2005.

No. Changing your mind, if that's what Alito did, does not make you a liar.

Prove he didn't change his mind.

?

Maybe Alito 'respected' Roe v Wade (which I assume means he agrees with the reasoning and would not overturn it) in 2005, and by 2022 he no longer respected Roe v Wade. Maybe his understanding of Roe v Wade evolved. Maybe he never 'respected' it in 2005 and was lying. Maybe there was miscommunication between Kennedy and Alito.

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe Alito 'respected' Roe v Wade (which I assume means he agrees with the reasoning and would not overturn it) in 2005, and by 2022 he no longer respected Roe v Wade. Maybe his understanding of Roe v Wade evolved. Maybe he never 'respected' it in 2005 and was lying. Maybe there was miscommunication between Kennedy and Alito.

Until you provide actual evidence that Alito changed his mind, you are peddling horseshit apologia.