Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,035 posts)
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 12:49 PM Jul 2022

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Lieu ask Senate for clarity: Did Gorsuch, Kavanaugh lie about Roe?

WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., have asked the Senate to clarify whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath about their stand on abortion during their confirmation hearings.

In a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer issued Monday, the lawmakers said "multiple" Supreme Court justices "misled the American people during their confirmation hearings about their views on Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood."

The letter accuses "at least" Kavanaugh and Gorsuch of not telling the truth.

The legislators said, "it is impossible to reconcile the sweeping majority opinion in Dobbs with the statements made by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ted-lieu-ask-senate-for-clarity-did-gorsuch-kavanaugh-lie-about-roe/ar-AAZuLh4

Yes as did Sam Alito.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Lieu ask Senate for clarity: Did Gorsuch, Kavanaugh lie about Roe? (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2022 OP
Chuck? Oh, Chuuuuuuck!!! Yoo hoo! Scrivener7 Jul 2022 #1
K&R Blue Owl Jul 2022 #2
Why? What do they intend to do about it? Novara Jul 2022 #3
Laying the ground work for a perjury charge? gratuitous Jul 2022 #4
Exactly. If enough Roe, Roe, Roe their vote, we might even get to impeachment. Hermit-The-Prog Jul 2022 #8
THIS. KPN Jul 2022 #13
We Faux pas Jul 2022 #5
Does anyone know what Thomas said about Roe in 1991? Polybius Jul 2022 #6
So did Clarence, rsdsharp Jul 2022 #7
Those Anita Hill hearings were absolutely awful to leftyladyfrommo Jul 2022 #9
It's my understanding that when they would say "settled law" Baggies Jul 2022 #10
Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #16
Recommended. H2O Man Jul 2022 #11
KnR Hekate Jul 2022 #12
K&R spanone Jul 2022 #14
K&R. KPN Jul 2022 #15

Novara

(5,843 posts)
3. Why? What do they intend to do about it?
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 01:00 PM
Jul 2022

I'm at a loss to understand what they can do about this.

I mean, it's a feel-good for Democrats but other than that, probably not very useful in practical terms.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
4. Laying the ground work for a perjury charge?
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 01:04 PM
Jul 2022

Get people used to the idea that lying during a candidate's confirmation hearing is a serious matter?

Buttress the argument that rulings from the Roberts Court are as illegitimate as the justices issuing them?

You can't fashion a wall with one brick, but if you lay enough of them together, you'll get there.

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,355 posts)
8. Exactly. If enough Roe, Roe, Roe their vote, we might even get to impeachment.
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 02:52 PM
Jul 2022

That's a lot of bricks in the future, but not impossible.

Meanwhile, things like this get a headline and therefore some more people get informed about real things instead of Faux things.

Polybius

(15,437 posts)
6. Does anyone know what Thomas said about Roe in 1991?
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 01:11 PM
Jul 2022

I'm sure he was asked, I just want to see if he lied, told the truth, or said something like "I can't say, there are cases that will go before the court."

leftyladyfrommo

(18,868 posts)
9. Those Anita Hill hearings were absolutely awful to
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 03:11 PM
Jul 2022

watch. Everyone knew Thomas was guilty as sin


But Boys Will Be Boys.

Baggies

(503 posts)
10. It's my understanding that when they would say "settled law"
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 03:45 PM
Jul 2022

It’s my understanding that when any potential appointee would say “settled law” or “stare decisis”, that didn’t mean they thought it was the law always and forever or that the current precedent was the final word on the issue. It meant it was viewed as the current law, but that wasn’t a promise that it would always stay current law, that if a better argument came along then things could change.

And I don’t remember that series of questions being asked except for the topic of Roe, but I could be mistaken.

But is anything ever a law that can’t be overruled by a court, and more specifically the USSC? No, I never believed that.

Despite the opinions of some, these people are very intelligent and they no doubt had a team of other attorneys who made sure they spoke in their confirmation hearings in such a way that can be explained and keep them from being dismissed. They’re there to stay.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
16. Exactly
Tue Jul 12, 2022, 03:59 PM
Jul 2022

Settled law is only settled until it isn't, which is why priorities should be codified.

And stare decisis is not, or has it ever been, ironclad. Any justice who believes a precedent, any precedent, was wrongly decided is not bound by that precedent.

And no nominee ever, to my knowledge, has said that they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade, or conversely, that they would not; to do so would have been to prejudge a case yet to be heard.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,...