General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlexandria 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.
Scrivener7
(50,955 posts)Blue Owl
(50,427 posts)Novara
(5,843 posts)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)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)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.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)all know thomas lied bigly about Anita Hill.
Polybius
(15,437 posts)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."
rsdsharp
(9,186 posts)oh so long ago. Uncle Clarence played the long con, uh, I mean, game.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)watch. Everyone knew Thomas was guilty as sin
But Boys Will Be Boys.
Baggies
(503 posts)Its my understanding that when any potential appointee would say settled law or stare decisis, that didnt 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 wasnt a promise that it would always stay current law, that if a better argument came along then things could change.
And I dont 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 cant 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. Theyre there to stay.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)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.