McConnell put it right in front of our faces he stated his number one goal was to obstruct anything put forth by Obama! Or for that matter any democrat legislative bill, Obama and his party were pussyfooting everything as if it would just work out and it did just like McConnell panned it! Fuck this country and it’s flag waving idiots that flag will never fly on my house again ever!
I don't think there was a way to get Garland on the court. Recess appointment is a stretch but he would still be required to receive consent from the senate once they were back. And that assumes Roberts would have even sworn him in, which I don't think would have happened.
What GOP-named justices had said about Roe to Senate panel
By KEVIN FREKING
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nine justices of the Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling Friday, made clear their views on abortion, with the conservative majority overturning the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 and stripping away women’s constitutional protections for abortion.
The vote was 6-3 to uphold Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, but Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join his five fellow conservatives in overturning Roe. He wrote that there was no need to overturn the broad precedents to rule in Mississippi’s favor.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong had and to be overturned. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.
Every high court nominee, in one form or another, was asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of Roe. A look at how the Republican-nominated justices responded over the years when questioned by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before joining the court:
AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:
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.“
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent." Barrett replied that the way the term is used in “scholarship" and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category," Barrett said.
BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018: 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.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”
___
NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
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.”
___
ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”
___
ALITO, 2006
Specter, who was unabashedly supportive of Roe v. Wade, observed during Alito's hearings that the “dominant issue" was the “widespread concern" about Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. The issue arose because of a 1985 statement by Alito that the Constitution does not provide for the right to an abortion, Specter declared.
“Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?" Specter asked.
“Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.
“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."
Alito was the author of the leaked draft opinion, which declares the ruling in Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong from the start."
___
CLARENCE THOMAS, 1991:
The late Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, recalled chairing a committee hearing and listening to women maimed by “back-alley abortionists." He said he was “terrified if we turn back the clock on legal abortion services."
In questioning Thomas the senator said: “I want to ask you once again, of appealing to your sense of compassion, whether or not you believe the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion?"
Thomas replied: “I guess as a kid we heard the hushed whispers about illegal abortions and individuals performing them in less than safe environments, but they were whispers. It would, of course, if a woman is subjected to the agony of an environment like that, on a personal level, certainly, I am very, very pained by that. I think any of us would be."
Thomas declined though to give his opinion “on the issue, the question that you asked me."
“I think it would undermine my ability to sit in an impartial way on an important case like that," he said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
impeach all those that lied under questioning during confirmation hearings.
I don’t see how that is possible. For one, don’t they discuss and debate these topics? All they’d have to say is that is what they believed when questioned, but changed their opinion during the process of the case.
impeach all those that lied under questioning during confirmation hearings.
I don’t see how that is possible. For one, don’t they discuss and debate these topics? All they’d have to say is that is what they believed when questioned, but changed their opinion during the process of the case.
all of them spoke of respecting the precedent. this decision does the opposite and based on flawed history.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Abortion U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito Planned Parenthood Congress Government and politics Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan
What GOP-named justices had said about Roe to Senate panel
By KEVIN FREKING
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) —
The nine justices of the Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling Friday, made clear their views on abortion, with the conservative majority overturning the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 and stripping away women’s constitutional protections for abortion.
The vote was 6-3 to uphold Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, but Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join his five fellow conservatives in overturning Roe. He wrote that there was no need to overturn the broad precedents to rule in Mississippi’s favor.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong had and to be overturned. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.
Every high court nominee, in one form or another, was asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of Roe. A look at how the Republican-nominated justices responded over the years when questioned by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before joining the court:
AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:
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?"
ABORTION
Is abortion illegal in the U.S. now? Depends where you live
Guns and abortion: Contradictory decisions, or consistent?
Supreme Court conservatives flex muscle in sweeping rulings
Dems hope to harness outrage, sadness after abortion ruling
“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.“
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent." Barrett replied that the way the term is used in “scholarship" and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category," Barrett said.
The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion put in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overrule Roe v. Wade. The outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. (June 24)
___
BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018: 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.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”
___
NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
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.”
___
ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”
___
ALITO, 2006
Specter, who was unabashedly supportive of Roe v. Wade, observed during Alito's hearings that the “dominant issue" was the “widespread concern" about Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. The issue arose because of a 1985 statement by Alito that the Constitution does not provide for the right to an abortion, Specter declared.
“Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?" Specter asked.
“Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.
“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."
Alito was the author of the leaked draft opinion, which declares the ruling in Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong from the start."
___
CLARENCE THOMAS, 1991:
The late Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, recalled chairing a committee hearing and listening to women maimed by “back-alley abortionists." He said he was “terrified if we turn back the clock on legal abortion services."
In questioning Thomas the senator said: “I want to ask you once again, of appealing to your sense of compassion, whether or not you believe the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion?"
Thomas replied: “I guess as a kid we heard the hushed whispers about illegal abortions and individuals performing them in less than safe environments, but they were whispers. It would, of course, if a woman is subjected to the agony of an environment like that, on a personal level, certainly, I am very, very pained by that. I think any of us would be."
Thomas declined though to give his opinion “on the issue, the question that you asked me."
“I think it would undermine my ability to sit in an impartial way on an important case like that," he said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
: a
doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in
previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary
principles of justice
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
impeach all those that lied under questioning during confirmation hearings.
I don’t see how that is possible. For one, don’t they discuss and debate these topics? All they’d have to say is that is what they believed when questioned, but changed their opinion during the process of the case.
all of them spoke of respecting the precedent. this decision does the opposite and based on flawed history.
so yeah. they lied.
I’m sure they did lie, and that they thought if this case ever came before them they’d vote this way. But my point was it’s impossible to prove that when all the defense needs to be was they changed their mind during the deliberations of this case. How could you prove that isn’t the case?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
The lengths some will go to defend the indefensible. It’s partly why POOTWH was elected and why we have so many nut jobs in congress. And on the courts.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
Join the church of Scientology and star in military propaganda films?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
I’m aware nothing can be done.
They would lie about having lied, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. These lying Christo-fascists justices have lifetime appointments and there’s nothing that can be done about it.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
So then tell me, how would you prove specifically that they lied and didn’t just have a change of opinion during the course of deliberations? Because that is exactly the point and the job of the Supreme Court. To hear arguments in a case, listen the the evidence, reasoning and claims of the parties involved and then have a conference to deliberate before coming to a vote. So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that? I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
I'd totally pull a Tom Cruise. That's how I'd do it.
And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
He could simply say at the time that was his opinion. Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators. It's wishful thinking. There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have.
The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.
What they can do is win elections every year, eliminate the filibuster, and add justices to the court. Only problem is Dems don’t like voting, and like minded independents would rather treat elections like a popularity contest.
looking at some of the protests outside the Court yesterday, especially the picture posted here earlier with AP article, it’ll never happen. When there is more crowd density at a Marlins batting practice than a SCOTUS protest, you know you are on the perpetually losing side. #SorryHilary.
Comments
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nine justices of the Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling Friday, made clear their views on abortion, with the conservative majority overturning the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 and stripping away women’s constitutional protections for abortion.
The vote was 6-3 to uphold Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, but Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t join his five fellow conservatives in overturning Roe. He wrote that there was no need to overturn the broad precedents to rule in Mississippi’s favor.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong had and to be overturned. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent.
Every high court nominee, in one form or another, was asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of Roe. A look at how the Republican-nominated justices responded over the years when questioned by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before joining the court:
AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:
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?"
ABORTION
Is abortion illegal in the U.S. now? Depends where you live
Guns and abortion: Contradictory decisions, or consistent?
Supreme Court conservatives flex muscle in sweeping rulings
Dems hope to harness outrage, sadness after abortion ruling
“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.“
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent." Barrett replied that the way the term is used in “scholarship" and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category," Barrett said.
___
BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018: 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.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”
___
NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
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.”
___
ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”
___
ALITO, 2006
Specter, who was unabashedly supportive of Roe v. Wade, observed during Alito's hearings that the “dominant issue" was the “widespread concern" about Alito's position on a woman's right to choose. The issue arose because of a 1985 statement by Alito that the Constitution does not provide for the right to an abortion, Specter declared.
“Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?" Specter asked.
“Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.
“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."
Alito was the author of the leaked draft opinion, which declares the ruling in Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong from the start."
___
CLARENCE THOMAS, 1991:
The late Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, recalled chairing a committee hearing and listening to women maimed by “back-alley abortionists." He said he was “terrified if we turn back the clock on legal abortion services."
In questioning Thomas the senator said: “I want to ask you once again, of appealing to your sense of compassion, whether or not you believe the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion?"
Thomas replied: “I guess as a kid we heard the hushed whispers about illegal abortions and individuals performing them in less than safe environments, but they were whispers. It would, of course, if a woman is subjected to the agony of an environment like that, on a personal level, certainly, I am very, very pained by that. I think any of us would be."
Thomas declined though to give his opinion “on the issue, the question that you asked me."
“I think it would undermine my ability to sit in an impartial way on an important case like that," he said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Definition of stare decisis
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But my point was it’s impossible to prove that when all the defense needs to be was they changed their mind during the deliberations of this case. How could you prove that isn’t the case?
lying under oath? right. have a nice day.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So how would you prove, to the point of proving perjury and impeaching a judge, that they lied and that the designed process actually had no impact? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d like to know for those of you questioning it and claiming some will defend the indefensible. How do you prove that?
I already said I believe they did lie and knew how they’d vote. But that’s almost impossible to prove. Like to hear how you’d do it.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
It couldn’t be any less complicated.
Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
looking at some of the protests outside the Court yesterday, especially the picture posted here earlier with AP article, it’ll never happen. When there is more crowd density at a Marlins batting practice than a SCOTUS protest, you know you are on the perpetually losing side. #SorryHilary.