House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[HandleTheTruth]

The USSC overturned "precedent" five times. The USSC is NOT bound by precedent.

Five times the Supreme Court reversed a precedent

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion this week that would overturn the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade has raised fresh questions about when, if ever, a court ruling can safely be considere…

thehill.com

"One bedrock of American law is the doctrine of stare decisis, the principle that courts are generally bound to abide by past rulings. Yet the Supreme Court has also left itself wiggle room, repeatedly noting that adherence to precedent is not an “inexorable command.”

Five times over 245 years.

That a good reason to lie under oath and mislead those that have to advise and consent. A good reason to lie under oath.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Saying something is "precedent" or "settled law" doesn't mean that you will never vote to overturn

It's only happened five times in the history of the United states.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Saying something is "precedent" or "settled law" doesn't mean that you will never vote to overturn it.

I can see where you believe those answers to be misleading, and that saying "I will not comment on cases that I might rule on in the future." would have been a clearer/better response.

So we can expand the court and overturn anything we want to then. Right.

 

[pknopp]

It's only happened five times in the history of the United states.

It's happened many times. Not to the extent of this ruling but their ruling on Tribal Authority (which I completely disagreed with) overturned precedent also.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

It's happened many times. Not to the extent of this ruling but their ruling on Tribal Authority (which I completely disagreed with) overturned precedent also.

Five times only

 

[HandleTheTruth]

It's happened many times. Not to the extent of this ruling but their ruling on Tribal Authority (which I completely disagreed with) overturned precedent also.

It's OK. We can expand the court and change anything we want to know. Says you.

 

[kyzr]

Five times over 245 years.
That a good reason to lie under oath and mislead those that have to advise and consent. A good reason to lie under oath.

They did not LIE under oath.
Saying something is "precedent" does NOT mean that your future votes are committed to protecting it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's only happened five times in the history of the United states.

It has happened 141 times.

 

[pknopp]

It's OK. We can expand the court and change anything we want to know. Says you.

Well yes, you could if you could.

 

[Lesh]

Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that elected politicians could not pass a law at the federal level.

In fact they suggested that Congress SHOULD. Do that

 

[kyzr]

So we can expand the court and overturn anything we want to then. Right.

Manchin says no to expanding the USSC.
Right, if congress ever expands the court it becomes a political court instead of a legal court and can "make law".
That would be bad.

 

[pknopp]

It's only happened five times in the history of the United states.

In a 5-4 decision yesterday led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court walked back the reach of its ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma and toppled much older court precedent, finding that the federal government and state had concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against tribal members on reservation land (Energywire, April 28).

Supreme Court reins in landmark tribal lands ruling

 

[HandleTheTruth]

In a 5-4 decision yesterday led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court walked back the reach of its ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma and toppled much older court precedent, finding that the federal government and state had concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against tribal members on reservation land (Energywire, April 28).

Supreme Court reins in landmark tribal lands ruling

They should of said this is precedents but we plan to overturn it if they were to be honest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sorry over 200 times, The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of its own decisions. Here are some of the most consequential reversals.

 

[pknopp]

They should of said this is precedents but we plan to overturn it if they were to be honest.

No, they should have said "I can not comment on a case I have not heard yet".

 

[HandleTheTruth]

In fact they suggested that Congress SHOULD. Do that

No doubt. We plan on questioning the Supreme more about their plans on overturning precedent in the future. No doubt Bout it.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

sorry over 200 times, The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of its own decisions. Here are some of the most consequential reversals.

They shod of been honest and said they planned to over turn Roe.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

I never claimed that but I still believe the justices words were intended to mislead.

Yes they didn't want tp say they wod overturn the law if they were put on the bench.

 

[Lesh]

They shod of been honest and said they planned to over turn Roe.

If they were that honest they would not have been confirmed.

Susan Collins would have been "very concerned" by that answer.

 

[pknopp]

They shod of been honest and said they planned to over turn Roe.

I do not believe any justice should ever comment on a case they have not heard. It would mean they have prejudiced themselves.