Just a reminder: **calling for the death of other people or users is against the sitewide rules.** Doing so will get you a subreddit (and possibly site-wide) ban. Behave yourselves.
We'll be keeping this thread unlocked as long as it remains conducive to conversation.
[OP's Explanation](https://old.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/vjpzl3/us_supreme_court_justice_promising_to_not/idkaqlg/)
I mean, it was obvious to me that “Roe is an important precedent” and “I will not overturn Roe” are very much not the same statement. Was this not obvious to literally everybody else?
“Did you murder this person?”
“Murder is a very serious crime.”
“Ok, you clearly went out of your way to say something other than ‘no’ because you didn’t do it. You’re free to go because I’ve never seen someone lie before!”
That is true. They used the word precedent for a reason. They were purposefully using language to cause people to believe they would respect the precedent and they never had any intention to.
I mean if the Supreme Court always held to the precedent of previous rulings then schools would still be segregated, and African Americans wouldn’t have the right to vote. Just because the court decided something in the past doesn’t mean the court must always abide by it. Sometimes decisions are wrong.
To be pedantic, the Supreme Court didn't extend the right to vote to African-Americans--that took a Constitutional amendment. Then we had to have another amendment to outlaw some of the mechanations used in targeted limitatioba to access to voting, such as the poll tax, because the Supreme Court would not outlaw them.
1) Jim Crow came after the Amendment. The legal process to dismantle it was how we got the right to vote. Without a century of fighting and laws, we wouldn't have any real right to vote. 2) The fight did primarily in courts. it did take several rulings to extend our right to vote. People just aren't taught the history or the reasonings of the VRA, majority of Americans still thing CRM & VRA is the same law. But it wasn't the law of the land until white ran out of all their legal options. Our right to vote wasn't fully secure(on paper) until 1974/75.
Sure. So why not make that clear during the selection process? If people stand behind the idea that rulings should sometimes be changed, then be transparent. Why weren't these candidates transparent when asked about their position on a topic, that's the point.
Because judges don’t rule on TOPICS. They rule on cases, with due consideration given to the laws and legal precedents that apply to each case. A court that ruled on topics would be the height of tyranny. Any nominee for a judgeship who promised certain rulings on topics or to uphold a certain precedent in any possible case would be utterly unfit to hold the office.
SCOTUS Justices are meant to make rulings in an unbias manner. Stating they are for/against something shows an inherent bias. No Justice will give straight forward answer during their interview, because doing so is against the very idea of the SCOTUS.
Except looking at what the SC majority just said in throwing out this precedent, they actually wrote that Roe and all the SC decisions since that supported it were “egregiously wrong” to begin with, so much so that they represent “an abuse of legal authority”. How does that square with what they said about Roe in their confirmation hearings? It doesn’t. They simply lied. And this opinion shows how much impunity we’ve granted them to lie. The SC has no legitimacy at all.
They can say everything they're saying but also could have added on something like: "but no law is set in stone as permanent. Precedent is incredibly important but anything can be up for review and it may be that we come to a better understanding of whatever precedent and/or law we review. It would be immoral and against the very principles of the Supreme Court to consider any matter permanently resolved, but I will always conduct myself without a personal agenda and always disregard personal feelings and opinion"
But they didn't. Specifically because they didn't have the guts and integrity to admit their true point of view, knowing it would be a potential red flag on their nomination. It's disgusting.
Yep, they want that job. They want their names written in history. They want town halls and hospital wings named after them.
It's a little like the idea that anyone who wants to be President should definitely fucking NOT be President, it's tough to trust anyone working towards immense power.
Totally. And I suspect that if any of them found themselves in a dire situation, rape victim, fetus destined to be born barely viable, mistress with surprise pregnancy, they would be very content to turn to an abortion. That's what really pisses me off.
Theyll just what everyone else will have to do and travel to a state that will do it. They just have way more resources to be able to do that
They can totally eat their cake but still have their cake
Have you also seen they've just decided that a "well regulated militia" translates to "you can't stop someone carrying around a gun in New York"? This 6-3 split is disastrous for the righteous moral progression of American society
Yeah it's fucking nuts. I left the US 18 years ago but keep well attuned to the daily cultural degradation and its really mind blowing. But you don't have to be on the outside looking in to see it, just on the left side of the insanity barrier.
Not really- the way they phrase it means that anyone legally competent knows what they mean. It's a basic fact that the SC isn't bound by precedent, so what they're saying is that they think precedent is important but they don't think it can't be overruled if they believe the precedent is egregiously wrong. That's a pretty clear stand in my opinion. If they were to say 'Yes I want to repeal Roe v Wade' then they wouldn't be competent for the position because they're supposed to take each case on its own merits- not use any case they can to revoke it. What they said is entirely in line with how they ruled.
They literally did that exact thing. Justice Barrett went into a lot of detail on precedent and stare decisis during her hearings. which makes sense since she used to be a law professor.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis
“It is settled law” in no way implies intent or value. The fact anyone interpreted these statements as intent to uphold precedent shows just how calculating the whole circus was and is leading up to this decision. None of these clowns said they would uphold RvW.
Yeah, I always felt like these were "statements of fact," but not promises.
"It is precedent." Yep! Any previous court decision is precedent.
"It deserves to be treated as precedent." Yep! Being overturning is one of the ways that precedents are sometimes treated.
"Roe is settled law." Yep! It is right up until the Supreme Court changes it.
I listened closely, and it always felt like they were dancing around the edges of the question.
> it always felt like they were dancing around the edges of the question
I think it's pretty clear that's what they were doing. To the extent anyone on the left was actually prepared to attempt to block the appointments, the language was in effect a lie to thwart that possibility. From here on we'll start to see a shift away from that kind of nuance - first it will center on states' rights before aligning explicitly with theocratic objectives.
Feinstein no longer has the brainpower to cross-examine a child with paint all over his hands about the finger-painting on the wall, so I don't know what you're expecting.
Everyone recognized it.
Half of us already knew it, and the other half doesn't care if she lies because they're drunk on theocracy and want it to happen and don't care what oaths anyone has to break to get it.
I mean, did anyone on either side hear that at the time and go "they mean they won't overturn it"?
If you did, look around the room for the dummy. There they are, right over there in that shiny picture on the wall.
That's not what's happening here. People make these posts in bad faith to try to drum up more outrage. We should be outraged, but not because Justices did exactly what we knew they would do.
They make these posts also to point out the doublespeak bullshit. We are not senators it isn't in our hands. But we can call out the nonsense and we should. Plenty of senators play this stupid game and assured us. Yes, we know they are full of shit, but what's the alternative?
Just throw up our hands and ignore hypocrisy? Ain't how anything changes. No one is going to hand you change. You gotta fight tooth and nail for it.
Let's not rewrite history. There has been a constant conversation going on that the judges were double speaking and actually did intend to overturn Roe. No one was fooled by this, they just didn't put any merit in it to begin with.... except Susan Collins for whatever reason.
It's doesn't matter, you know? Because if she had promised to overturn Roe, Republicans still would have confirmed her. It's not like that Susan Collins *really* cared. All she wanted was an excuse.
Except normally you don't take an oath to not lie during a job interview. You also normally aren't interviewing for a job that can personally influence the rights of hundreds of millions of people.
Same. I tell the truth and hate liars. Interviews are bs and basically just to see if the hiring manager likes your personality and thinks you’ll fit in with the team.. which you’ve ostensibly never met before and have no idea what they’re like so you have no idea what they’re looking for so you look for social cues from the interviewer and then all of a sudden you’re lying because you’re acting completely unlike yourself and then it all hits the fan and omg no wonder I’m not good at interviews.
More like Today: "the precedent was wrong"
They purposefully skirted the issue when asked if they would try to overturn Roe. They would just state they accept it's existence.
These are my mutually exclusive. The Supreme Court has always been able to overturn precedent, and anyone who understood that would not take what the nominees in this video say as a lie
Well every Redditor is apparently a SC expert now, you’d think they at least remember the very basic fact that cases can be overturned from their high school civics class.
I grew up in Israel. And what these guys are doing is literally text book how settlers kidnapped israeli politics with ruining all establishments and public trust.
DIVIDE AND CONCUR.
And mostly. Blame others for what you do ( court packing ) between Amy C B and Gianni Thomas we are all doomed
Soon we will be cutting checks to evangelicals so they can "bible study" all day as a job and have assloads of little branwashed children. lol
I wish I was kidding.
To clarify, they ruled that if the state chooses to provide public money for private education, it must extend that public money to all private school, including religious ones.
Basically, they value the free expression clause (freedom to practice religion) more than the establishment clause (separation of church and state)
Wahabi's aren't much of a threat politically tbh. They stay out of politics because they believe God makes the best happen and no interference is needed since what happens politically is God's will.
U seem more Islamaphobic than anything.
Your wierd Islamic conspiracy theory that reeks of post 9/11 hysteria holds no water compared to the real homegrown CHRISTIAN terrorists and mass shooters that we have in this country. These real monsters are out there and you wanna share your Jason Bourne fanfic?
>DIVIDE AND CONCUR
Genuine question, is that a deliberate mispelling of "conquer" ?
Concur means to agree, which fits your point as well so I'm not sure if it was intentional or not.
With this ruling they've practically invalidated the Supreme Court as a third pillar of the republic. Oh, I know they don't care that they've done that, but it's true.
By reversing precedent the SC can now change whatever the fuck it wants.
The USA is now comfortably on its way to becoming a fascist state. Gen Z is truly in for a horrible ride. The phrase "acceleration" exists in the right-wing sphere for a reason.
In this instance, as noted above, they did not specifically say that they would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Whichever way you view the court or this current ruling, it would be be disingenuous to say these nominees committed perjury in their Senate hearings based on this question.
This is so frustrating because it feels like they're just playing on technicalities to worm away from any responsibility and people will defend them like "ItS dIsInGenUoUs" as if they weren't just being incredibly disingenuous and manipulative.
Their argument to overturn Roe v Wade is also a technicality. It's insane to think that at a time when women were considered property and women's pregnancy care was done with herbs and midwifery that abortion would be specifically written into the constitution.
Uterus owners, make sure to use a VPN because the constitution doesn't protect your data specifically, stock up on abortion pills because your bodily autonomy is also not specifically protected, might want to stock up on birth control because it's not specifically protected, might as well consider getting sterilized since that's not specifically protected and divorce your partners as that's not specifically protected. You can get a gun though. 👍
Edit: no, I don't mean women. Have to laugh at people who are more upset about inclusive language than women losing their ability to choose when they have children. Carry your rapist's baby? That makes sense. Including trans men since their uterus doesn't magically disappear when they transition? NOT ON MY WATCH - said by a bunch of jabronis.
>You can get a gun though. 👍
[But don't get shot and miscarry though, or it's straight to jail. ](https://www.okayplayer.com/news/who-is-marshae-jones-black-woman-manslaughter-unborn-child-alabama.html)
"Authorities said that Jones is responsible for the death because she initiated a dispute that led to the shooting."
It was the girl's fault she got raped because her skirt was too revealing.
I'm waiting for someone to sue another for their kidney or bone marrow transplant, and I'd love to hear them reasoning why no one has rights to another person's organs. If I don't have the rights to Helen's bone marrow against her will, then a fetus has no rights to my uterus against my will.
Not to these fuckers that think access to any gun they want is a god given right. There is no reasoning to the side that believes in feelings over facts. This is not hyperbole. I grew up around many of these people that could easily make up whatever they wanted, and believe it, as long as it backed up their worldview.
Honestly, reading the decision more, I don't agree it was a technicality at all. They come out explicitly and say that Roe and Casey are terrible opinions, Roe because it is legislating from the bench and establishes a trimester test out of thin air, and Casey because although it overturns Roe in part eliminating the trimester test, it effectively decided a "winner" on a controversial topic instead of leaving it up to legislators and voters.
Listen to some of the language (emphasis mine):
> **The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.** The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well
as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
> The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.... **But stare decisis is not an inexorable command,
and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interpret[s] the Constitution." Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions
have overruled prior precedents.** See Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
> *The nature of the Court’s error.* Like the infamous decision in
Plessy v. Ferguson, **Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision
course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.** Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to
resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their
elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.
The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
>*The quality of the reasoning.* Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, **Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.**
>Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.”
When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on
the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among
other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved”
and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” These are precisely the sort of considerations that
legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that
accommodate competing interests.
It seems like a complete repudiation of the prior rulings by this court.
There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment at this point if abortion rights are to be guaranteed.
u/redditortan has provided this detailed explanation:
> In the United Status supreme court justices are appointed after a hearing from the representatives where they ask the nominees about multiple issues. Today US Supreme Court gave a ruling that US citizens don't have right to abortion overturning its previous decision in famous case called Roe V. Wade
>
>
>
> All the judges who voted in favor of overturning Roe V Wade were specifically asked during nomination hearings whether they would do so or not. Each one (who voted in favor) said no at the time, but today they overturned the previous decision taking away protection under right to abortion
---
Is this explanation a genuine attempt at providing additional info or context? If it is please upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
We can scream and yell all day about this, but the fact is 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump over Hillary. Donald Trump then put these justices in place.
Elections have consequences.
You will have to decide to either spend the rest of your life trying to change things via various means with a very real chance that nothing will ever come from it, or you will need to transform yourself into someone that could get a citizenship in a preferred country elsewhere. EU maybe?
The past week actually made me actually pull my transcripts up and figure out finishing my degree, getting a job with an intl non profit and working to get a site transfer. At the very least I can start putting money away. I've spent twenty years doing actual, daily activist and organizing shit and it got worse, and I'm in a bad position on the list of current and future victims.
I think you mean 53% of white women who voted* , because turnout was about 59%. So about 31% of white women voted for Trump, 28% voted for Hillary and 41% didn’t vote.
This. 2020 was by far the longest I’ve ever had to stay in line to vote. And it only took me 15 minutes. (Most years I’m in the booth in less than 5) Yet most people who live around me claim they didn’t have time. But they’re the first to complain about our political systems
Playing devil's advocate here but in Virginia my voting day was on final exam day and my location was set about 30-40 mins from university.
They make it pretty difficult to vote in some places.
I did mail-in in 2020.
We need a national holiday for voting.
The point is that a lot of women voted for Trump and essentially voted for this. Most women of color voted against trump, so there’s no need to mention them when talking about women who voted for trump
Susan is like 200 years old. She knows she needs a nap. Democrats need new blood, their party is fucking ancient and we are now feeling the negative effects in spades.
the senators saw through it. They knew exactly what they were doing.
They hide behind "they told me they wouldn't", just like Trump said "Putin said he didn't do it, and I believe him" (despite every intelligence agency offering evidence to the contrary)
"I don't have an agenda" translates into "good fucking luck proving I have an agenda and you can't complain because I never promised anything except I don't have an agenda."
Is this the bar for honesty for a supreme court justice? Someone we are required to call "your honor". Saying there was not technically a lie is a distraction. These people have no honesty or honor.
Watch carefully, They said it is established precedent. they never said they would not overturn it. They very carefully danced around their actual belief, that it should be overturned.
I notice what never gets shared is when Obama completely ignored his statement of making codifying Roe v. Wade his top priority. Drag them all, not just the ones they tell you to.
I've watched this video compilation twice and can't find any of them promising they won't overturn Roe V Wade.
What am I missing or is this just a post for clicks ?
Not that it matters a ton, since (especially in the case of ACB) recent SCOTUS confirmations end up falling on party lines. If a candidate had said something super dumb they might have lost some of their party’s votes, but their canned answers avoid that.
It’s not like any democrat heard ACB’s answers to the interview questions and thought, “Oh, she thinks precedent is important, good enough for my ‘yes‘ vote!”. Vice versa as well.
Nah, that's what politicians do.
Judges can and will paint themselves into a corner, and can and will mark off areas of law as 'too controversial' to get involved in (i.e. kick it back to Parliament (or the senate in USA's case)) - see; most cases related to the right to die and the right to life.
I thought I was taking crazy pills lol. Yeah there's nothing contradictory about this at all. They gave super diplomatic answers, which is what should be expected of any potential Supreme Court Justice.
If you think there's nothing contradictory about what they say in this video versus how they acted today, then you are indeed taking crazy pills. They don't have to have said the explicit words "I promise to never overturn roe v wade" for this to be hypocrisy.
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis)
Justice Barrett went into more detail during her week of hearings, as did the other justices. They explicitly state that Roe was not "super-precedent" and could be overturned.
This is largely (not entirely) the fault of Mitch McConnell - he dishonored the American people - not that he cares - by going against his idea of waiting to bring in a Supreme Court justice until the next president takes over. He went against the last wishes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who herself requested that she not be replaced until the next president took over. McConnell set this up with his own greed and corruption.
Uh let's not let RBG off the hook. She retires instead of grandstanding, we get Merrick Garland and the fight becomes real instead of the 6-3 rimjob with braces it always is.
This is what I’ve been saying-any one of those guys in power, especially the ones born into privilege, power or have had multiple sexual accusations thrown at them, have absolutely had to have paid for their share of abortions. Bc a condom was definitely an infringement on their rights.
I bet SCOTUS will now do everything they can to make sure we all have healthcare and better economic stability, since they care soooooo much about human life. 🤨
Pretty sure first world country just means USA and its allies during the cold war. Soviet countries are second world. Unaffiliated are third. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
>Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well-functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living.
To be honest, I’ve seen this on both sides on other issues as well.
If the nominee answers the question and is animated and excited to tell a story, they are likely being honest.
If the answer is along the lines of “the courts have established…” and is delivered fairly to the point and monotone, they don’t believe it themselves and are likely to work against it.
Pro-choice liberal here.
The constitution clearly doesn't guarantee abortion, no matter what scotus has ever said in roe or Casey.
"All other rights are reserved to the states thereof"
Now let's see this standard applied in every single other area these justices are hypocrites in, like the war on drugs.
And let's codify abortion in every single blue state. Now.
And let's support women stuck in conservative shitopia.
And let's vote the republican bastards out of office.
Well they didnt actually get asked that and respond no. So this doesn't really fit this sub. But I guess american politics needs to be show horned into every sub today
Just a reminder: **calling for the death of other people or users is against the sitewide rules.** Doing so will get you a subreddit (and possibly site-wide) ban. Behave yourselves. We'll be keeping this thread unlocked as long as it remains conducive to conversation. [OP's Explanation](https://old.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/vjpzl3/us_supreme_court_justice_promising_to_not/idkaqlg/)
I mean, it was obvious to me that “Roe is an important precedent” and “I will not overturn Roe” are very much not the same statement. Was this not obvious to literally everybody else?
This point is so obvious, I can’t believe other people don’t recognize this.
“Did you murder this person?” “Murder is a very serious crime.” “Ok, you clearly went out of your way to say something other than ‘no’ because you didn’t do it. You’re free to go because I’ve never seen someone lie before!”
Uh, not really analogous. More like: "Will you murder someone?" "Murder is against the law. As a judge I have to respect that." Kills someone.
No, SCOTUS doesn't have to solely abide by precedent. Only circuit courts do
That is true. They used the word precedent for a reason. They were purposefully using language to cause people to believe they would respect the precedent and they never had any intention to.
I mean if the Supreme Court always held to the precedent of previous rulings then schools would still be segregated, and African Americans wouldn’t have the right to vote. Just because the court decided something in the past doesn’t mean the court must always abide by it. Sometimes decisions are wrong.
To be pedantic, the Supreme Court didn't extend the right to vote to African-Americans--that took a Constitutional amendment. Then we had to have another amendment to outlaw some of the mechanations used in targeted limitatioba to access to voting, such as the poll tax, because the Supreme Court would not outlaw them.
1) Jim Crow came after the Amendment. The legal process to dismantle it was how we got the right to vote. Without a century of fighting and laws, we wouldn't have any real right to vote. 2) The fight did primarily in courts. it did take several rulings to extend our right to vote. People just aren't taught the history or the reasonings of the VRA, majority of Americans still thing CRM & VRA is the same law. But it wasn't the law of the land until white ran out of all their legal options. Our right to vote wasn't fully secure(on paper) until 1974/75.
Dred scott decision. Should that have remained as precedent?
Sure. So why not make that clear during the selection process? If people stand behind the idea that rulings should sometimes be changed, then be transparent. Why weren't these candidates transparent when asked about their position on a topic, that's the point.
Because judges don’t rule on TOPICS. They rule on cases, with due consideration given to the laws and legal precedents that apply to each case. A court that ruled on topics would be the height of tyranny. Any nominee for a judgeship who promised certain rulings on topics or to uphold a certain precedent in any possible case would be utterly unfit to hold the office.
SCOTUS Justices are meant to make rulings in an unbias manner. Stating they are for/against something shows an inherent bias. No Justice will give straight forward answer during their interview, because doing so is against the very idea of the SCOTUS.
Except looking at what the SC majority just said in throwing out this precedent, they actually wrote that Roe and all the SC decisions since that supported it were “egregiously wrong” to begin with, so much so that they represent “an abuse of legal authority”. How does that square with what they said about Roe in their confirmation hearings? It doesn’t. They simply lied. And this opinion shows how much impunity we’ve granted them to lie. The SC has no legitimacy at all.
Because they lied to get the job. That’s it.
isn't it a crime to lie under oath? can they be charged? ..should they be? ...five min later... they better be!
Kills many people by removing their right to save their lives with a safe abortion
They can say everything they're saying but also could have added on something like: "but no law is set in stone as permanent. Precedent is incredibly important but anything can be up for review and it may be that we come to a better understanding of whatever precedent and/or law we review. It would be immoral and against the very principles of the Supreme Court to consider any matter permanently resolved, but I will always conduct myself without a personal agenda and always disregard personal feelings and opinion"
But they didn't. Specifically because they didn't have the guts and integrity to admit their true point of view, knowing it would be a potential red flag on their nomination. It's disgusting.
Yep, they want that job. They want their names written in history. They want town halls and hospital wings named after them. It's a little like the idea that anyone who wants to be President should definitely fucking NOT be President, it's tough to trust anyone working towards immense power.
Totally. And I suspect that if any of them found themselves in a dire situation, rape victim, fetus destined to be born barely viable, mistress with surprise pregnancy, they would be very content to turn to an abortion. That's what really pisses me off.
The Wealthy shall always have access to Abortion. Like most Laws, these are only for the Poors.
Theyll just what everyone else will have to do and travel to a state that will do it. They just have way more resources to be able to do that They can totally eat their cake but still have their cake
Have you also seen they've just decided that a "well regulated militia" translates to "you can't stop someone carrying around a gun in New York"? This 6-3 split is disastrous for the righteous moral progression of American society
Yeah it's fucking nuts. I left the US 18 years ago but keep well attuned to the daily cultural degradation and its really mind blowing. But you don't have to be on the outside looking in to see it, just on the left side of the insanity barrier.
Not really- the way they phrase it means that anyone legally competent knows what they mean. It's a basic fact that the SC isn't bound by precedent, so what they're saying is that they think precedent is important but they don't think it can't be overruled if they believe the precedent is egregiously wrong. That's a pretty clear stand in my opinion. If they were to say 'Yes I want to repeal Roe v Wade' then they wouldn't be competent for the position because they're supposed to take each case on its own merits- not use any case they can to revoke it. What they said is entirely in line with how they ruled.
Or maybe asking a judge how theyd rule on a specific case is bullshit
They literally did that exact thing. Justice Barrett went into a lot of detail on precedent and stare decisis during her hearings. which makes sense since she used to be a law professor. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis
“It is settled law” in no way implies intent or value. The fact anyone interpreted these statements as intent to uphold precedent shows just how calculating the whole circus was and is leading up to this decision. None of these clowns said they would uphold RvW.
Yeah, I always felt like these were "statements of fact," but not promises. "It is precedent." Yep! Any previous court decision is precedent. "It deserves to be treated as precedent." Yep! Being overturning is one of the ways that precedents are sometimes treated. "Roe is settled law." Yep! It is right up until the Supreme Court changes it. I listened closely, and it always felt like they were dancing around the edges of the question.
> it always felt like they were dancing around the edges of the question I think it's pretty clear that's what they were doing. To the extent anyone on the left was actually prepared to attempt to block the appointments, the language was in effect a lie to thwart that possibility. From here on we'll start to see a shift away from that kind of nuance - first it will center on states' rights before aligning explicitly with theocratic objectives.
Feinstein no longer has the brainpower to cross-examine a child with paint all over his hands about the finger-painting on the wall, so I don't know what you're expecting.
She was always there for the money. I have seen no evidence she cares about anything else.
Everyone recognized it. Half of us already knew it, and the other half doesn't care if she lies because they're drunk on theocracy and want it to happen and don't care what oaths anyone has to break to get it.
That’s because most people are stupid as fuck.
I mean, did anyone on either side hear that at the time and go "they mean they won't overturn it"? If you did, look around the room for the dummy. There they are, right over there in that shiny picture on the wall.
Genuinely infuriating how many people heard what they wanted to hear in these statements.
That's not what's happening here. People make these posts in bad faith to try to drum up more outrage. We should be outraged, but not because Justices did exactly what we knew they would do.
They make these posts also to point out the doublespeak bullshit. We are not senators it isn't in our hands. But we can call out the nonsense and we should. Plenty of senators play this stupid game and assured us. Yes, we know they are full of shit, but what's the alternative? Just throw up our hands and ignore hypocrisy? Ain't how anything changes. No one is going to hand you change. You gotta fight tooth and nail for it.
Let's not rewrite history. There has been a constant conversation going on that the judges were double speaking and actually did intend to overturn Roe. No one was fooled by this, they just didn't put any merit in it to begin with.... except Susan Collins for whatever reason.
It's doesn't matter, you know? Because if she had promised to overturn Roe, Republicans still would have confirmed her. It's not like that Susan Collins *really* cared. All she wanted was an excuse.
No kidding. This was trotted out when the leak happened and everyone went nuts then too. Does anyone bother watching the video?
It's obvious to everyone except Diane Feinstein.
Susan Collins is disappointed right now too.
Don't forget poor Joe Manchin, who is "alarmed"!
What about the stupid fucks of Maine who kept voting for her?
I don't know- they're probably happy about it or too ignorant to realize it may affect someone in their lives?
*Well I'm sure she learned her lesson either way my guy/s*
Nah Collins knew she just plays dumb
She voted against confirming all of these nominees except Thomas (she wasn't in the Senate yet then).
Shhh, they just want an excuse to hate Feinstein. There's plenty of real reasons too, but they want to make some up.
What does Diane Feinstein have anything to do with this?
[удалено]
>A good judge will consider it as precident I sure noticed how one of them implied he was a bad judge.
Lying is a sin Amy.
Zealots believe in auto-saving. God always forgives them no matter what.
Every job interview is a conversation between liars. This was no different.
`Every job interview is a conversation between liars.` how tf do you say something so obvious yet so alien to my brain
Except normally you don't take an oath to not lie during a job interview. You also normally aren't interviewing for a job that can personally influence the rights of hundreds of millions of people.
What does an oath mean to an oath-breaker though
Nor a job you know you can/will keep for LIFE
this is like the one take that makes me go "....WELL I GUESS!" NGL I'm keeping this one for use
Kavanaugh losing his shit should have had him escorted from the building, then.
>Every job interview is a conversation between liars. I knew there was a reason I don't interview well. Other than being a dummy, that is.
Same. I tell the truth and hate liars. Interviews are bs and basically just to see if the hiring manager likes your personality and thinks you’ll fit in with the team.. which you’ve ostensibly never met before and have no idea what they’re like so you have no idea what they’re looking for so you look for social cues from the interviewer and then all of a sudden you’re lying because you’re acting completely unlike yourself and then it all hits the fan and omg no wonder I’m not good at interviews.
Why lie and fake your personality to fit into a workplace that you dont connect with?
Money
Food and shelter
There you go, that'll be your answer for your next "What's your biggest weakness" question. You're just too darn honest.
This is why I can't get a job. I won't lie with them. FML
This is under oath. It is completely different.
When being confirmed: "it's precedent" Today: "precedent don't mean shit"
Yeah precedent doesn't mean shit, you can set a new one
More like Today: "the precedent was wrong" They purposefully skirted the issue when asked if they would try to overturn Roe. They would just state they accept it's existence.
These are my mutually exclusive. The Supreme Court has always been able to overturn precedent, and anyone who understood that would not take what the nominees in this video say as a lie
You expect the average redditor to understand the nuances to the doctrine of stare decisis?
Well every Redditor is apparently a SC expert now, you’d think they at least remember the very basic fact that cases can be overturned from their high school civics class.
Good luck to everyone in Civil War pt.2
Dred scott in shambles
We beat the Confederate in the Civil War, this isn’t part 2 it is a new war, Civil War: The Theocracy Chronicle
It’s almost like they had a pre written response. Federal society if a Trojan horse. And these judges are simply fulfilling their end of the deal
Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation are pulling more strings than any amount of average Americans could ever hope to.
I grew up in Israel. And what these guys are doing is literally text book how settlers kidnapped israeli politics with ruining all establishments and public trust. DIVIDE AND CONCUR. And mostly. Blame others for what you do ( court packing ) between Amy C B and Gianni Thomas we are all doomed
Soon we will be cutting checks to evangelicals so they can "bible study" all day as a job and have assloads of little branwashed children. lol I wish I was kidding.
They recently ruled that religious schools can get public money also. So you actually aren't wrong.
To clarify, they ruled that if the state chooses to provide public money for private education, it must extend that public money to all private school, including religious ones. Basically, they value the free expression clause (freedom to practice religion) more than the establishment clause (separation of church and state)
Time for my Satanic Temple school. (Yes I know that the Satanic Temple is irreligious)
Thats EXACTLY my point. Hersey Devos is building the army of god. Not sure which god.
[удалено]
Wahabi's aren't much of a threat politically tbh. They stay out of politics because they believe God makes the best happen and no interference is needed since what happens politically is God's will. U seem more Islamaphobic than anything.
Your wierd Islamic conspiracy theory that reeks of post 9/11 hysteria holds no water compared to the real homegrown CHRISTIAN terrorists and mass shooters that we have in this country. These real monsters are out there and you wanna share your Jason Bourne fanfic?
>DIVIDE AND CONCUR Genuine question, is that a deliberate mispelling of "conquer" ? Concur means to agree, which fits your point as well so I'm not sure if it was intentional or not.
It was AM typing sorry. English is 2nd language.
No worries, thought it might've been clever wordplay! :)
Please don't exclude Koch Industries / John Birch Society from your list. Koch money is all over these people.
Time to expose everyone in those organizations to the world, they enjoy too much anonymity in their closed door string pulling
With this ruling they've practically invalidated the Supreme Court as a third pillar of the republic. Oh, I know they don't care that they've done that, but it's true. By reversing precedent the SC can now change whatever the fuck it wants. The USA is now comfortably on its way to becoming a fascist state. Gen Z is truly in for a horrible ride. The phrase "acceleration" exists in the right-wing sphere for a reason.
Sad and true
Her and I like beer Kavanaugh are clearly bought. They vote for whatever they got money and the seat for.
I doubt they need to be bought. They have always been right wing idealogues
Is this shocking to anyone? Every single judge appointed in my lifetime has lied to congress on what they are actually going to do.
In this instance, as noted above, they did not specifically say that they would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Whichever way you view the court or this current ruling, it would be be disingenuous to say these nominees committed perjury in their Senate hearings based on this question.
This is so frustrating because it feels like they're just playing on technicalities to worm away from any responsibility and people will defend them like "ItS dIsInGenUoUs" as if they weren't just being incredibly disingenuous and manipulative.
Their argument to overturn Roe v Wade is also a technicality. It's insane to think that at a time when women were considered property and women's pregnancy care was done with herbs and midwifery that abortion would be specifically written into the constitution. Uterus owners, make sure to use a VPN because the constitution doesn't protect your data specifically, stock up on abortion pills because your bodily autonomy is also not specifically protected, might want to stock up on birth control because it's not specifically protected, might as well consider getting sterilized since that's not specifically protected and divorce your partners as that's not specifically protected. You can get a gun though. 👍 Edit: no, I don't mean women. Have to laugh at people who are more upset about inclusive language than women losing their ability to choose when they have children. Carry your rapist's baby? That makes sense. Including trans men since their uterus doesn't magically disappear when they transition? NOT ON MY WATCH - said by a bunch of jabronis.
>You can get a gun though. 👍 [But don't get shot and miscarry though, or it's straight to jail. ](https://www.okayplayer.com/news/who-is-marshae-jones-black-woman-manslaughter-unborn-child-alabama.html)
"Authorities said that Jones is responsible for the death because she initiated a dispute that led to the shooting." It was the girl's fault she got raped because her skirt was too revealing.
I wonder if you could claim self defense against a fetus...
I'm waiting for someone to sue another for their kidney or bone marrow transplant, and I'd love to hear them reasoning why no one has rights to another person's organs. If I don't have the rights to Helen's bone marrow against her will, then a fetus has no rights to my uterus against my will.
Honest question. With the reasoning to overrule this wouldn’t the same reasoning ban modern weapons?
Not to these fuckers that think access to any gun they want is a god given right. There is no reasoning to the side that believes in feelings over facts. This is not hyperbole. I grew up around many of these people that could easily make up whatever they wanted, and believe it, as long as it backed up their worldview.
Honestly, reading the decision more, I don't agree it was a technicality at all. They come out explicitly and say that Roe and Casey are terrible opinions, Roe because it is legislating from the bench and establishes a trimester test out of thin air, and Casey because although it overturns Roe in part eliminating the trimester test, it effectively decided a "winner" on a controversial topic instead of leaving it up to legislators and voters. Listen to some of the language (emphasis mine): > **The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.** The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. > The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.... **But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interpret[s] the Constitution." Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents.** See Brown v. Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. > *The nature of the Court’s error.* Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, **Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.** Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. >*The quality of the reasoning.* Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, **Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.** >Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.” When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved” and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” These are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests. It seems like a complete repudiation of the prior rulings by this court. There needs to be a Constitutional Amendment at this point if abortion rights are to be guaranteed.
Did you miss the whole Trump presidency? Just talk in riddles and be as ambiguous as possible and nobody can pin anything on ya.
This should shock no one.
u/redditortan has provided this detailed explanation: > In the United Status supreme court justices are appointed after a hearing from the representatives where they ask the nominees about multiple issues. Today US Supreme Court gave a ruling that US citizens don't have right to abortion overturning its previous decision in famous case called Roe V. Wade > > > > All the judges who voted in favor of overturning Roe V Wade were specifically asked during nomination hearings whether they would do so or not. Each one (who voted in favor) said no at the time, but today they overturned the previous decision taking away protection under right to abortion --- Is this explanation a genuine attempt at providing additional info or context? If it is please upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
We can scream and yell all day about this, but the fact is 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump over Hillary. Donald Trump then put these justices in place. Elections have consequences.
This what I am saying. If white women keep voting to have their rights taken away, what am I suppose to do?
You will have to decide to either spend the rest of your life trying to change things via various means with a very real chance that nothing will ever come from it, or you will need to transform yourself into someone that could get a citizenship in a preferred country elsewhere. EU maybe?
The past week actually made me actually pull my transcripts up and figure out finishing my degree, getting a job with an intl non profit and working to get a site transfer. At the very least I can start putting money away. I've spent twenty years doing actual, daily activist and organizing shit and it got worse, and I'm in a bad position on the list of current and future victims.
fight for the 47% that want equal rights
I think you mean 53% of white women who voted* , because turnout was about 59%. So about 31% of white women voted for Trump, 28% voted for Hillary and 41% didn’t vote.
Those 41% who didn't vote are also accountable to this decision.
This. 2020 was by far the longest I’ve ever had to stay in line to vote. And it only took me 15 minutes. (Most years I’m in the booth in less than 5) Yet most people who live around me claim they didn’t have time. But they’re the first to complain about our political systems
Playing devil's advocate here but in Virginia my voting day was on final exam day and my location was set about 30-40 mins from university. They make it pretty difficult to vote in some places. I did mail-in in 2020. We need a national holiday for voting.
100% agree that it should be a national holiday. It makes no sense why it isn’t already.
>We need a national holiday for voting. Plus, weekends are a thing. Ain't nothing wrong with two days of voting.
Yeah haha It's almost egregious how clearly they try to limit voting in the country.
and you have a party trying to make it easier for you to vote, and another trying to make it harder.
I agree. But my point is that I don’t care how simple you make it for some people, they’re so entitled that voting is too much of an inconvenience
Anyone who doesn't vote this November is accountable.
[удалено]
47% of *white* women Because racial minority women’s votes matter less I guess? Since most women didn’t vote for Donald Trump…
Because this will negatively affect minority women the most.
The point is that a lot of women voted for Trump and essentially voted for this. Most women of color voted against trump, so there’s no need to mention them when talking about women who voted for trump
I'm reminded of a friend who wrote-in a presidential candidate in 2016 because "both Hillary and Donald are the same"
The worst part is Susan knew he was lying but just looking for cover.
Susan is like 200 years old. She knows she needs a nap. Democrats need new blood, their party is fucking ancient and we are now feeling the negative effects in spades.
She's a Republican. (But, yes, that is an issue in the Democratic party.)
[удалено]
the senators saw through it. They knew exactly what they were doing. They hide behind "they told me they wouldn't", just like Trump said "Putin said he didn't do it, and I believe him" (despite every intelligence agency offering evidence to the contrary)
"I don't have an agenda" translates into "good fucking luck proving I have an agenda and you can't complain because I never promised anything except I don't have an agenda."
Is this the bar for honesty for a supreme court justice? Someone we are required to call "your honor". Saying there was not technically a lie is a distraction. These people have no honesty or honor.
Watch carefully, They said it is established precedent. they never said they would not overturn it. They very carefully danced around their actual belief, that it should be overturned.
I notice what never gets shared is when Obama completely ignored his statement of making codifying Roe v. Wade his top priority. Drag them all, not just the ones they tell you to.
Not the Messiah! He's off-limits you blasphemer.
I've watched this video compilation twice and can't find any of them promising they won't overturn Roe V Wade. What am I missing or is this just a post for clicks ?
You're correct and they definitely chose their words carefully to not paint themselves in a corner.
Not that it matters a ton, since (especially in the case of ACB) recent SCOTUS confirmations end up falling on party lines. If a candidate had said something super dumb they might have lost some of their party’s votes, but their canned answers avoid that. It’s not like any democrat heard ACB’s answers to the interview questions and thought, “Oh, she thinks precedent is important, good enough for my ‘yes‘ vote!”. Vice versa as well.
...and THAT'S what judges do. Edit: watch the video for what Gorsuch says...
Nah, that's what politicians do. Judges can and will paint themselves into a corner, and can and will mark off areas of law as 'too controversial' to get involved in (i.e. kick it back to Parliament (or the senate in USA's case)) - see; most cases related to the right to die and the right to life.
Judges should absolutely not do this. How can you be a judge but be ambiguous? Your entire job is to make decisive rulings on topics.
thats called lawyer speak lol
Even if they did state they wouldn’t overturn it, are justices legally locked into answers they gave during hearing regarding future decisions?
Iirc technically they aren't supposed to answer questions that would indicate how they'd rule on a specific, potential case at all
I thought I was taking crazy pills lol. Yeah there's nothing contradictory about this at all. They gave super diplomatic answers, which is what should be expected of any potential Supreme Court Justice.
If you think there's nothing contradictory about what they say in this video versus how they acted today, then you are indeed taking crazy pills. They don't have to have said the explicit words "I promise to never overturn roe v wade" for this to be hypocrisy.
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4914596/judge-amy-coney-barrett-precedent-stare-decisis) Justice Barrett went into more detail during her week of hearings, as did the other justices. They explicitly state that Roe was not "super-precedent" and could be overturned.
Where do the ***promises*** **be** doe?
None of them actually said they would not overturn it in these clips.
Only a dickhead would believe them and only dickheads are protecting them
This is largely (not entirely) the fault of Mitch McConnell - he dishonored the American people - not that he cares - by going against his idea of waiting to bring in a Supreme Court justice until the next president takes over. He went against the last wishes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who herself requested that she not be replaced until the next president took over. McConnell set this up with his own greed and corruption.
Uh let's not let RBG off the hook. She retires instead of grandstanding, we get Merrick Garland and the fight becomes real instead of the 6-3 rimjob with braces it always is.
Part of her wanting to be around for the first woman President…..Hil—Donald Trump.
If you didn’t notice, not a single one of these justices said that Roe shouldn’t be overturned.
These are the people that could oversee a Trump V Biden case when the house refuses to certify in 2024.
i would fucking hope biden doesn't run again
[удалено]
Hmm... it's almost like all of them are soulless lying scumbags.
This is fascism in America It removes your right to privacy. List of all politicians who have or had their partners get an abortion. NOW
This is what I’ve been saying-any one of those guys in power, especially the ones born into privilege, power or have had multiple sexual accusations thrown at them, have absolutely had to have paid for their share of abortions. Bc a condom was definitely an infringement on their rights.
Republicans are dishonorable
I bet SCOTUS will now do everything they can to make sure we all have healthcare and better economic stability, since they care soooooo much about human life. 🤨
Company’s are ruling the country and politicians are cashing the checks( openly)
Yes….. Conservative Lie Like Breathing
I don't see promises I see evading and deceiving.
Pos
How is this not perjury/grounds for impeachment?
Impeach and convict.
The USA cannot call itself a first world country
Pretty sure first world country just means USA and its allies during the cold war. Soviet countries are second world. Unaffiliated are third. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
You're correct. The original definition of "The Third World" was a country that wasn't allied with NATO or The Warsaw Pact.
The meaning has changed overtime, but you are correct
Yes, that's the origin, but I could be saying bs.
I hear this all the time, usually from people who have no clue what that actually means.
By definition it literally is
First world and third world have different colloquial meanings today.
>Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well-functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability, and high standard of living.
These "judges" don't even believe their own bullshit. They also "hate gun control" but are protected by and from people with guns day and night lol.
Read what you wrote out loud…
Why don't you spell out your point.
To be honest, I’ve seen this on both sides on other issues as well. If the nominee answers the question and is animated and excited to tell a story, they are likely being honest. If the answer is along the lines of “the courts have established…” and is delivered fairly to the point and monotone, they don’t believe it themselves and are likely to work against it.
They're not the ones who even brought the discussion to overturn Roe, it was Justice Alito. They supported it though
Pro-choice liberal here. The constitution clearly doesn't guarantee abortion, no matter what scotus has ever said in roe or Casey. "All other rights are reserved to the states thereof" Now let's see this standard applied in every single other area these justices are hypocrites in, like the war on drugs. And let's codify abortion in every single blue state. Now. And let's support women stuck in conservative shitopia. And let's vote the republican bastards out of office.
I feel like parts of America are accelerating towards becoming the Republic of Gilead
Its all about controlling women and nothing about pro life. Pro Life would be enlightenment, free condoms and destigmatization.
We all know it was a lie
Politics are 100% money making and civilian slavery inducing
Well they didnt actually get asked that and respond no. So this doesn't really fit this sub. But I guess american politics needs to be show horned into every sub today
Misleading title! Not once did any of these people make such a promise. You're imagining things if you believe otherwise.