Collins, Manchin suggest they were misled by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on Roe v. Wade

[CaughtInThe]

Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and the rest of the leading Democrats are massive liars. Does that surprise anyone?

I think the most ironic thing about your post (other than you are a gigantic Trump fanboy) is you are trying to compare politicians to judges. You don't even realize that judges are held to an enormous standard. But you're also a 2022 Republican so that makes complete sense.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Everyone knew they were lying. They're still lying.

They didn't lie. Please, by all means, quote the lie. Are you under the impression that "important precedent" is immune from reversal? If so, where do you get that idea? MSNBC? CNN?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

No. I'd be content with a prospective justice to be willing to candidly, honestly, offer their views on whether RvW was properly adjudicated. They wouldn't have to "declare how they would rule on a case" - I'd settle for a simple declaration of "the Roe decision was a wrong one, and should be overturned at the earliest opportunity". At least that would have been honest.

How about if the Senators actually posed that question? Did they? Where?

Where did one of the Senators ask "Do you think Roe v Wade should be overturned?" And, if they asked that question and got the answer, "what I can say is Roe is important precedent..." wouldn't that be a good indication that that the Justice isn't willing to say it wouldn't be overturned?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Thank you for pointing out that these justices are nothing more than political hacks.

Any Justice appointed to the SCOTUS gets there by being politically connected. If you think the Leftist Justices aren't political, you're naive.

 

[Helix]

Nobody was misled. This is a propaganda narrative. By pointing this finger at Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the Senators get political gain from lining up their base behind them. They're creating the enemy they can point at and say - Yeah! It's those Justices who lied and fooled us! They said they'd never overrule Roe and Casey! They hoodwinked us! That way, they don't have to answer for why they don't already have a bill before Congress to make legalized abortion available federally. They can introduce a bill under the Commerce Clause which says that no state will eliminate abortion in the first X weeks of pregnancy, for example, and that all restrictions must otherwise take into account the life and health of the mother, etc. But, they interestingly aren't doing that. Can anyone guess why?

It's easy enough to vote against them. I'll be voting against Republicans in my own state, too.

 

[SuperDS77]

No. I'd be content with a prospective justice to be willing to candidly, honestly, offer their views on whether RvW was properly adjudicated. They wouldn't have to "declare how they would rule on a case" - I'd settle for a simple declaration of "the Roe decision was a wrong one, and should be overturned at the earliest opportunity". At least that would have been honest.

Well the next nominee (liberal or conservative) who answered like that, on RvW or any other precedent, would be the first.

 

[Anthony60]

The ones you should be asking are sitting on the Supreme Court. They were willing to deceive the judiciary panel into believing the overturning of RvW was not their intention, just so their nominations would be confirmed. About as cowardly a thing to do as anything the budding crypto-theocrats have done.

As we can tell by Clarence Thomas's comments, they won't be happy until they turn the USA into their idea of a "christian" Iran!

Of course, they are not to discuss any future cases that may be before them. Congress knows that, and that's why every justice on the court answered in that way.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Gorsuch and these other nominees did not say that they would uphold Roe v. Wade. Not once. All they said was that Roe v. Wade was "precedent."

""Settled precedent".....implying they would uphold it.

That was an obvious fact that has no bearing on whether these judges would vote to overrule that precedent if confirmed. If you ask someone "will you murder Bob" and they respond "there is a statute banning murder" but don't deny they will murder Bob, then guess what? Bob's toast.

Then they are intentionally misleading.

I don't understand how Collins can be surprised. She is either a fool (not understanding the basic logical difference difference between saying something is precedent vs. agreeing not to overrule a precedent) or a liar (knowing exactly what was going to happen and now just feigning being deceived for political reasons).

Perhaps justices should provide straightforward honest answers instead of dishonestly misleading people because they know that would not have been confirmed had they been honest.

It is unethical. And grounds for impeachment.

If these unethical justices get impeached for their dishonesty you can bet nominees will answer honestly in the future.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

And yet she was a willing accomplice up until that point. She could plead all she liked, because they didn't need her vote.

Willing accomplice to who? She voted against the confirmation.

 

[Lakryte]

""Settled precedent".....implying they would uphold it.



Then they are intentionally misleading.


Perhaps justices should provide straightforward honest answers instead of dishonestly misleading people because they know that would not have been confirmed had they been honest.

It is unethical. And grounds for impeachment.

If these unethical justices get impeached for their dishonesty you can bet nominees will answer honestly in the future.

Saying something is "settled precedent" does not imply you will uphold it. If I ask "will you uphold Roe v. Wade" and instead of saying "Yes, I will uphold Roe" you instead answer only "Roe is settled precendent" the strong inference is that you do not support Roe because you are refusing to say so. Senators who took comfort in meaningless characterizations of Roe as "settled precedent" are fools if they truly understand such statements in the context they were given to mean Roe was safe.

Saying Roe v. Wade was "settled precedent" was also 100% factual, so I doubt it can form the basis for any impeachment. And the Supreme Court is not bound by settled precedent, as anyone with the slightest understanding of the U.S. legal system knows. The Supreme Court can and does overrule settled precedent all the time (rightly or wrongly). All Senators should know this, which is why in my view so-called "moderates" like Collins could not possibly have taken words like this to mean Roe was safe. The failure of any of these nominees to respond by saying "I will not overturn role" implies far more strongly that they would not uphold Roe.

 

[multivita-man]

More importantly, neither justice stated or implied that they would not overrule Roe or Casey, or that either of those cases were immune from the same rules of stare decisis that apply to all other cases, which are that bad precedent, ESPECIALLY IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES, per Seminole Tribe of Florida v State of Florida, can be overruled. The "importance" of precedent is not the same thing as it being not subject to being overruled. Dred Scott v Sanford, probably the worst/saddest most horrible Supreme Court decision ever certainly is "important" Supreme Court precedent.

The fact that precedents get reversed gets brought up again and again, but the why of a reversal matters. In the case of Dred Scott, the question was whether Black citizens had legal standing to be citizens of the United States -- that was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment, not a reversal of the SCOTUS.

Plessy v Ferguson was reversed, but the reason for that was obvious. The majority in Plessy v Ferguson argued that state segregation laws did not violate the 14th amendment because different races of people could be said to be treated equally under the law even if they were segregated. Some six decades later, it was clear to the Court that the Court's assumption in Plessy was wrong, so it reversed the ruling in order to protect the rights of Black Americans.

There was 50 years of court cases that both upheld portions of Roe and chiseled some of the original decision out. That was the precedent the Court should have at least made an attempt to adhere to. Again, in Dobbs, Mississippi wasn't even asking for Roe to be overturned; they were just asking the Court to accept the stringent abortion law. That was something that even John Roberts, who sided with Dobbs/Mississippi, seemed to acknowledge.

 

[poweRob]

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin criticized the Supreme Court's ruling to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

The two centrist senators slammed the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate abortion rights after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the court.

www.nbcnews.com

Kavanaugh told the Senate at his 2018 confirmation hearing that the Roe decision "is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." Gorsuch, at his 2017 hearing, said of Roe that "a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court."


Did they really think that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wouldn't jump at the chance to overturn Roe? And why is Coney-Barrett exempt from their ire? What's the point? Are they trying to satisfy as many constituents as possible by straddling the fence?

It's their "Oh wells" ignore and move on like it never happened. It's not like they'll do anything about being lied to.

 

[poweRob]

NO really? Don't mind everyone told them that was going to happen.

The action she will take against it will be to carry around a deep sense of disappointment in him.

 

[RAMOSS]

The action she will take against it will be to carry around a deep sense of disappointment in him.

a claimed sense of disappointment.

 

[cpwill]

Their full-throated acknowledgment of "Roe v. Wade is settled law" - which they did repeatedly - and then electing to overturn it - effectively "unsettling" it - can certainly be construed as perjurious.

No. Words have meaning.

For example, all the justices that overturned Precedent in the Obergefell decisions also promised to respect precedent when getting confirmed. I don't recall ya'll throwing a fit about that.

While their choice of language might not rise to a prosecutable perjury, at least the general public shouldn't labor under the misapprehension that those justices didn't LIE under oath. They did.

As a simple factual matter, they did not.

 

[cpwill]

It was important precedent of the Supreme Court, and it had to be taken quite seriously by the Justices who overruled it.

Indeed.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin criticized the Supreme Court's ruling to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

The two centrist senators slammed the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate abortion rights after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the court.

www.nbcnews.com

Kavanaugh told the Senate at his 2018 confirmation hearing that the Roe decision "is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." Gorsuch, at his 2017 hearing, said of Roe that "a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court."


Did they really think that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wouldn't jump at the chance to overturn Roe? And why is Coney-Barrett exempt from their ire? What's the point? Are they trying to satisfy as many constituents as possible by straddling the fence?

Can one truly be blamed for misleading a complete fool?

 

[Channe79]

At no point did the Justices say they wouldn't overturn Roe if presented with reasonable arguments. They simple said that at the moment they were asked the question, they accepted Roe v Wade as established law. The fact the left is too ignorant to understand words is not our problem.

 

[SCrider]

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin criticized the Supreme Court's ruling to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

The two centrist senators slammed the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate abortion rights after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the court.

www.nbcnews.com

Kavanaugh told the Senate at his 2018 confirmation hearing that the Roe decision "is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." Gorsuch, at his 2017 hearing, said of Roe that "a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court."


Did they really think that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wouldn't jump at the chance to overturn Roe? And why is Coney-Barrett exempt from their ire? What's the point? Are they trying to satisfy as many constituents as possible by straddling the fence?

**** both of them. They are just trying to use this for political cover.

 

[JMB802]

At no point did the Justices say they wouldn't overturn Roe if presented with reasonable arguments. They simple said that at the moment they were asked the question, they accepted Roe v Wade as established law. The fact the left is too ignorant to understand words is not our problem.

LOL, welcome "New member"! Your writing style is very familiar.

 

[mrjurrs]

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin criticized the Supreme Court's ruling to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

The two centrist senators slammed the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate abortion rights after they voted to confirm Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the court.

www.nbcnews.com

Kavanaugh told the Senate at his 2018 confirmation hearing that the Roe decision "is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." Gorsuch, at his 2017 hearing, said of Roe that "a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court."


Did they really think that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wouldn't jump at the chance to overturn Roe? And why is Coney-Barrett exempt from their ire? What's the point? Are they trying to satisfy as many constituents as possible by straddling the fence?

And in other news, water is wet.

 

[NolanVoyd]

At no point did the Justices say they wouldn't overturn Roe if presented with reasonable arguments. They simple said that at the moment they were asked the question, they accepted Roe v Wade as established law. The fact the left is too ignorant to understand words is not our problem.

So they deliberaty mislead during their confirmation hearings.

 

[Channe79]

So they deliberaty mislead during their confirmation hearings.

They answered the question truthfully. No democrat asked them "Will you repeal Roe if evidence is presented in that direction ?" Instead, the dems kept asking, "Do you accept Roe v Wade as established law."

 

[JMB802]

They answered the question truthfully. No democrat asked them "Will you repeal Roe if evidence is presented in that direction ?" Instead, the dems kept asking, "Do you accept Roe v Wade as established law."

Already addressed in this and other threads before you joined today. I won't be holding your hand through them.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They answered the question truthfully.

No they didn't.

They deliberately mislead in their confirmation hearings and also in private meetings with Collins and Manchin. Both of them have said so. It's unethical and grounds for impeachment. If they had been honest they would not have been confirmed.