Well, if your opinion of Justice Barrett is that she is an unqualified patsy that doesn't deserve respect, it's and ignorant and incredibly misogynistic opinion. Make that a 50 point drop.
It’s not misogynistic since I already mentioned I believe the same about kavanaugh and thomas.
Why would republicans like rabid dogs?
The Kavanaugh and Barrett nomination hearings were the liberal / progressive / Democrat's idea of what governance, review and consent are all about: i.e. ruthlessly and baselessly attack those who aren't of your tribe.The famous "gonzo journalist" Hunter S. Thompson once said, "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." The confirmation hearing of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is about to vividly show what Thompson meant. Less than two years after the abusive treatment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Senate is holding a hearing that is dramatically different in the treatment of the Supreme Court nominee and the issues considered relevant to her confirmation.
For those with memories going back to 2020, there have been striking differences in how the news media haved covered Jackson's nomination in recent weeks. When Barrett was nominated, the media ran unrelenting attacks on her and her background. Nothing was viewed as out of bounds, from her religion to her personal life to fabricated theories of prior assurances on pending cases.
From the start of the Jackson hearing, this is clearly different in both optics and approaches. Barrett was surrounded by pictures of people relying on the Affordable Care Act, a framing to portray Barrett as threatening the very lives of sick people. It was all part of an absurd claim (fostered by liberal legal experts) that Barrett was appointed to kill the ACA.
I objected at the time that senators wereradically misconstruing the pending case and that Barrett was more likely to vote to preserve the ACA. (Barrett ultimately voted to preserve the act, as expected.)
Ketanji Brown Jackson getting the respect that Amy Coney Barrett was denied
Ketanji Brown Jackson's judicial philosophy is unclear and will be a key question at her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.www.usatoday.com
———————
Very apt comparison between the Barrett and Jackson hearings.
The answer to your question, was already in the statement.
He said under oath the Roe was "settled law" and now is voting to repeal it. It is not the 1st time he perjured himself either.
Imagine the party of lifetime pedophile and rapist ‘gop Speaker Denny Hastert’ being concerned about pedophilia.
Even if he votes to overturn it, how is that perjury in the context of what you posted?
He responded that “as a judge” he would respect the “important precedent” of Roe v. Wade and its reaffirmations.
He has no idea what the word means.
That’s not perjury. If he had stated he would never, under any circumstances vote to overturn Roe you might have a case. With what you posted you don’t.
settled law is not the same thing as saying he respects "bad" precedent. The FDR court ignored "settled law"
It is interesting that you don't care how misleading and sleazy a Supreme court Justice is under oath. He was asked if he supported the precedent and said yes. That is how you want the highest court in the land to act? You should move to Russia.
so you are saying a justice should tell everyone how he might vote on a hot button issue.
He should tell the truth about whether he respects 50 year precedents yes.
Now you are just lying. That defendant did not rape anyone no less a child. He was a 18 year old kid with a sickness and did not participate in any sex acts with children. 4 police officers died as a result of the "walking around the Capitol".Well let’s see..which is more egregious..raping children and uploading your recorded ravishings to the internet and having the judge apologize to you for sending you to jail or a light sentence for walking around the Capitol. Ooo that’s hard.
He shouldn't answer how he might rule.
I should move to Russia because you don’t understand perjury? I’ll pass.
You want a partisan reactionary SC that embraces the past mistakes of the court and loses all allegiance to the Constitution. It will damage the court irreparably without anything to restore the balance. We will see.
Oh nonsense. I don’t want someone accused of or tried for perjury when they didn’t do anything to warrant it. If you’re going to make a specific accusation you should be able to back it up. You failed to do that so now you’re resorting to the usual partisan hack accusations. In other words, it’s a day ending in a Y.
Yeah, that’s MUCH worse than being falsely accused of sexual assault.