Yes they did.
neil gorsuch:
With President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?”
Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
So using gorsuch's words, he must not be a good judge. He didn't treat it like any other precedence but he said he would. He lied.
amy barrett
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the committee, asked Barrett: “So the question comes, what happens? Will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now? Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?”
“Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis,” Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts
giving weight to precedent when making their decisions.
Barrett went on to say that she would do that for “any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
barrett didn't follow satare decisis but she said she would. She lied.
brett kavanaugh
It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember,” Kavanaugh said.
He ignored precedence and threw it out the window when he said he wouldn't. He lied.
sam alito
“Today if the issue were to come before me, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me, the first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing, and that’s the issue of stare decisis,” Alito said. “And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would approach the question with an open mind, and I would listen to the arguments that were made.”
“So you would approach it with an open mind notwithstanding your 1985 statement?” Specter asked.
“Absolutely, senator. That was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge thinks about legal issues.”
He said the first discussion was stare decisis. He didn't discuss stare decisis but said he would. If he had done what he said he would do, he wouldn't have written the ruling and he would have upheld case precedence. So he lied. He didn't approach it with an open mind so he lied about that too.
