LTE: 'Lying' Supreme Court justices should resign

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

In response to the Supreme Court’s overturning the 50 year precedent in Roe v. Wade, I comment not on the substance of the decision so much as the actions and character of Associate Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Of course I strongly disagree with the decision, as do more than 62% of the American people, according to at least one recent and reputable opinion poll.

But rather, I want to focus on these five. Far from being an ad hominem argument, I base my observations on known and indisputable facts; facts that are on the record and videotape.

They lied to the U.S. Congress and lied to the American people in their confirmation hearings in sworn testimony about Roe and stare decisis. Dishonesty has no place on the Supreme Court and neither do they. Their actions — and thus their character — are immoral and disgusting; they should be ashamed of themselves and resign from the court immediately.

The damage their lying and deceit has done to the Court is immeasurable and lasting, and they have done a great disservice to the Court and the nation. History will paint their reputations and legacies as political hacks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/palm-beach-letter-lying-supreme-101604632.html

[unblock]

1. As lawyers, they will claim their responses weren't technically lies

They said things like roe was "established precedent" and "settled law".

And under their breath, they said well it is for now until I get my hands on it....


Of course, this certainly is a lie by failing to tell "the whole truth", but it's often difficult to convict for perjury based on an omission, even a blatantly obvious one like this.

So then the question is, can we establish that it's was a lie to say it was "settled law" in the first place? Clearly it was settled law in terms of established court precedent over half a century. But in the minds of the radical right justices, no, it wasn't.

The fact that they described roe as "egregiously wrong" could be their undoing here. Had they said, "well, reasonable courts found a right to abortion, but after thorough and careful analysis an review, we were surprised to find no firm constitutional basis for such a right", they would have been on much more solid ground.

They could have said it seemed like a good precedent when they were sworn in, but now that they really dug in and researched it they found otherwise. Or were persuaded by compelling arguments in the case before then.

But it's hard to go from respected, established precedent and settled law to "egregiously wrong". That really, really makes it sound like they never actudd as lot respected it.


Of course, I really can't see them getting convicted for this, and we'll never get 67 senate votes to remove any of them over this.

[MichMan]

2. What happens when the next SC Justice nominated is asked about precedent?

Would they be expected to respect the precedence just recently established this last term?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters."

Link to tweet

[Rebl2]

4. They lied under oath

and need to be impeached. They should also lose their ability to practice law or teach law at Universities/college.

[AZLD4Candidate]

5. Not going to happen. Once an authoritarian has power, they won't give it up until they

are called away to their final judgement.