Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 34,655
- 19,032
Provide the proof that they said exactly that.Of course they said that.
If they said otherwise, there was a chance they would have not been confirmed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Provide the proof that they said exactly that.Of course they said that.
If they said otherwise, there was a chance they would have not been confirmed.
Can’t be done. For no jurist would answer a hypothetical asking how they would decide.Show the transcript of their exact words.
Show it.
Let's look back over what the "Liberal" justices said about 2A during their hearingsThey were under oath. I hope that it's passed on that you have no problem lying under oath.
You can post the questions and answers of their hearings as opposed something from Collins. Why have you have not done that leftwinger.It reflects on the legitimacy of the current court
If you have to outright lie to win votes for your confirmation, you are not a legitimate Justice
Collins was the swing vote on the Confirmation of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh
They assured her in public and private conversations that they honored the precedent of Roe v Wade
They LIED
Correct. They would no state something of that nature if they thought it would be recorded. It would prove they are unfit for the postion.Can’t be done. For no jurist would answer a hypothetical asking how they would decide.
Thus, instead, they got asked tepid and meaningless questions touching on that area of law. Yes. It’s a precedent. Yep. It’s “settled law,” alright, whatever that term might actually mean.
Deflecting to the poster rather than the thread topic?You're a crybaby loser.
This is true. They haven't held any hearings, haven't heard any arguments, and certainly haven't voted. We don't even know how many, if any, of them have read it.There is only a draft opinion. There are no concurring or dissenting opinions. We have no idea how anyone else feels.
Provide the proof that they said exactly that.
Oh...the 2nd Amendment is being overturned, is it?Let's look back over what the "Liberal" justices said about 2A during their hearings
Of course it does. They get criticized for it as well. Such an idiotic point.Ha ha ha, what you and that nutwoman thinks Prospecting justices must tell you ahead of time what their position is on various issues then allegedly lie about it later yet that very thing doesn't count for Senators, Representatives, President, Vice President.
Not what was asked. What was asked was their opinion of the precedent and whether they agree with it.For no jurist would answer a hypothetical asking how they would decide.
Of course they did – they’re conservatives, lying is what conservatives do.Did Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lie?
Of course they lied. Their anti-abortion cred was the ONLY THING that got them considered for the job. Fooling the moderate GOP Senators (like Collins) was their mandate given to them by the people holding the keys to the golden gate to SCOTUS.Yes, they lied.
Of course it does. They get criticized for it as well. Such an idiotic point.
Especially idiotic when you consider those are elected officials who have to fight for re-election every 2-6 years, instead of being lifetime appointments.
Correct.It reflects on the legitimacy of the current court
Another idiotic point from a whiny idiot. I vote in a basically binary choice each election.Except you and many others keeps excusing their lies and corruption by repeatedly voting for them to stay in office.
Looks like a lie to meAsk a dumb question, you get an answer you deserve.
At their hearings, back in the day.
Question for the Justice nominee: Do you accept that Roe v. Wade has precedential value?
Nominee: Yes.
Question for the Justice nominee: Is it settled law in your view?
Nominee: Yes.
Now in 2022, those nominees hear a case concerning Roe v. Wade.
Should Roe v. Wade be overruled?
The now Justices say “yes.”
No lie. No contradiction. Yes; It did have precedential value. Yes; It had been “settled law” for almost 50 years. And yes; it should be overruled.
Bad law and bad decisions don’t deserve to be perpetuated just because they’ve survived for a few decades.