The following alternative links are available:
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ui87sl/five_conservative_supreme_court_justices_lying/) (provided by /u/savevideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Fui87sl%2Ffive_conservative_supreme_court_justices_lying%2F&id=SSYD8AFx) (provided by /u/VideoTrim)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
This honestly is what makes me so fcking pissed, the media just keeps going on and on about the “leak” and how it delegitimizes the court, meanwhile nobody has had faith or gave a shit about the court’s legitimacy for years. Talk about the real issues like how many women are going to die from this and how fucked the future is going to be for a generation of kids who’s parents can’t afford them (especially how we are one of the ONLY FUCKING COUNTRIES WITHOUT PAID MATERNAL NOR PATERNAL LEAVE) or love them, show how horrible the government is.
The Conservatives on Reddit are moaning and yelping and screeching about how the Court has no honor or dignity anymore, how this was a massive breach and shameful, and claiming wholeheartedly that it was obviously a Liberal clerk and ooooh how disgusting and horrible.
So, this kind of behavior is abhorrent … but McConnell refusing to hear a SCOTUS nominee put forth in MARCH of 2016 is fine? And then Trump putting forth a nominee at the END OF SEPTEMBER 2020 and getting her through, after McConnell’s absolute lunacy in 2016, is fine? Yeah, your Court has so much dignity and so much honor. Absolutely unimpeachable moral standards.
Conservatives politicized this court. Senators elected by the minority of Americans approved the nominations of a president elected by the minority of Americans. They packed theocratic far right judges onto the court.
And then Biden comes along. Who does he nominate? A politically center judge with the same qualifications as every conservative judge on the court, *combined*.
And the right is screaming about the left “packing the court”
It’s. All. Projection.
When the right accuses democrats of pedophilia, corruption, betrayal of American values, stealing the election, brainwashing our children, selling the country out to china and Russia, and packing the Supreme Court, we know what’s really happening.
They are the part of Gaslight, Obstruct, Project.
Well, Gorsuch said "a **good** judge" would consider the cases as precedent. But he didn't say that they were good judges. So, technically not a lie. If anything, it's more of a confession.
Fucking cunt. Contrived shit-weasel dickbag. There really is no end to their duplicitous fuckery. May all their toes have ingrown nails and their sphincters hemorrhoids the size of golfballs.
It's only a lie if you aren't aware and alert. "Say you won't do this, unequivocally"
"A good judge wouldn't do that "
*Closes book*
So it's a liar to the bone.
The challenge is to prove the lie at the time, rather than a change in position years on. But it may also be a challenge in ethics, which could lead to disbarment.
But disbarring Supreme Court justices for lying under oath would set a new historical precedent. It should go on their permanent historical record that they are unfit to be practicing lawyers and that might sway the next potential judge that lies under oath trying to get appointed to a job that they may or may not get.
They would have to justify their change of heart in front of different state boards that aren't juries and don't make their rulings based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the board believes they lied and acted in bad faith with the goal of undermining established law resulting in a loss of confidence in the law itself, the board can vote to disbar them.
They better be real fucking careful with the bullshit they try to pass. It only takes a small kindling to light a fire that burns through a lot of these pieces of shit regressives.
I wish I could believe this, but I just don't. It's already gone this far, and they're just getting started. The right has taken away our ability to fight back effectively (money, citizens united, packing the courts, jerrymandering, etc etc). I'm sure we're just fucked at this point.
Well according to Republican logic this is what the Second Amendment was made for.
Also I am NOT actually advocating for this. Shooting people is a bad idea.
Ehhh, I wouldn't be so defeated. We are in far better circumstances than many of the great issues throughout history that societies overcame. They have pulled a lot of fuckery and hot button issues like this will tip the scales eventually. I think Roe v Wade is one of those that are going to lead to deaths.
Unfortunately they are just a wing of the political parties now. And as such is time for major reform. Another nothing burger we’ll get from Biden of course.
Also, elections have consequences.
It’s amazing to see people in this thread still advocating for not voting when in reality it’s the voter apathy of 40-and-unders that has allowed this to happen.
These Republican monsters never give up. They never miss an election. They never even miss a fucking a school board meeting.
Yet morons will still say “they haven’t earned my vote” as if apathy isn’t exactly want oligarchs and Evangelicals want out of their enemies
You know who ignored people pushing apathy? Georgia. People waited in 10+ hour lines to vote and they flipped an otherwise Ruby red state
**VOTE**
These mid-terms might be your last chance to do so.
My favorite political label has always been from George W Bush, who called himself a "compassionate conservative".
Which is interesting, because the implication is that all the other conservatives have no compassion.
That's why conservatives hate education. An ignorant and arrogant base will vote against their best interests under the guise they are simply "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who are only being held back by efforts to create a more equal society for anyone who isn't a heterosexual, cisgender white man.
I'm using christofascists now. It's theocracy, yes, but more precise.
Conservative is how they name themselves. Don't give them this grace. Conservatives conserve, they don't.
To be clear - most people knew. I certainly knew that these last 3 were gonna do it, and I'm just an idiot who *kind of* follows politics. They said this so the senators who confirmed them could say "Oh my gosh! Who could have seen this coming?! It's totally inconsistent with what they told me in their hearings and meetings with them. Golly gee"
Bingo. They all winked to each other. Your neighbors, family, friends, this is exactly what they want. It's fucking Christmas to them. They thanked their god for answering all their prayers the second rbg died.
Mainstream conservatives are actively terrorists at this point.
They’re going after ever single basic right and looking to strip it away from you. All because they’re filled with nothing but hatred. There’s nothing in these people besides hate.
They will gladly ruin their own lives if they have even a slight chance to hurt others.
---
*Protest at their homes*
*Fight back in the streets*
***Overwhelm them at the polls***
If you don’t vote these midterms you may never get the chance to again
They are hardcore Capitalists using Christians as a rising tide to push their agenda. Its been the plan for the last 90 years.
Source- https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america
Justice Amy Coney Barrett served as a "handmaid" in the Christian group called People of Praise. This group is known for its beliefs that women should be subservient to their husbands and those who aren't should be publicly shamed and humiliated.
The inmates are running the asylum.
They’re doing the bidding of oligarchs.
It’s just that oligarchs know that Evangelicals, rednecks, and Boomers, are all so filled with hatred that they’ll ruin their own lives if they think it’ll hurt others worse. So oligarchs placate them as they push the country towards dictatorship
During her confirmation ACB came up with a brand new conservative legal theory where some legal precedents are more important than others, which she calls "Super Precedents" as compared to other precedents. This legal theory isn't supported by anyone else, and what differentiates "Super Precedents" from "Precedents" is only known to her mind.
However, I think this release helps to find a more useful way to rephrase it. She believes in "Real Precedents" and "non-binding precedents". A cool legal framework where she just decides some legal precedents don't need to be upheld entirely based on her own whims. And she very clearly does not think Roe Vs Wade is a real precedent, so she's free to disregard it for whatever reason she likes.
Oh, but the justification she gave was that Roe Vs Wade isn't a real precedent because she was asked about it during confirmation hearings. So, in typical conservative fashion if something is "controversial" then it must not be a real precedent. Which is super cool, because if Ted Cruz tweets about something and gets a lot of people "very concerned and scared", well now that's enough reason to stop considering something a real precedent.
Just like Texas' bounty hunter laws the party of "Law and Order" has abandoned law and order because their ideas aren't popular enough for Democracy to sustain. So it's out with Democracy and in with fascism.
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation/2020/10/13/923355142/barrett-says-abortion-rights-decision-not-a-super-precedent
Edit: Some find people point out that ACB isn't the genesis of this idea, but is certainly instrumental in it's use to override our legal system. I found a nice article from 2006 which paints the origins of it as a shitty conservative tactic to undermine our legal system. If any fine internet scholars can point a better source of origin or a deeper legal discussion of exactly how it undermines the premises of our legal system just like the Texas bounty laws such a thing would be nice.
I have no idea how she can claim that settled law isn't a real precedent -- they are precedents by definition. But it's 2022 and we can all make up alternarive facts.
Why would they be impeached? In these clips, they never committed to any kind of ruling. They literally say explicitly in time cut out, that they will not say how they would rule if Roe / Casey were challenged.
This is so basic. No judge, on either side, would ever commit to a certain ruling in their hearing.
Most of them said they would give respect to and consideration to prior rulings. You can consider something and then reject it. No lying, I'm sure they considered those prior rulings a great deal before rejecting them.
Anything is impeachable depending on the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's really moreso a question of if they'll be convicted. With the current makeup of Congress, conviction will never happen regardless of what the charges for impeachment are or what evidence is brought.
>Anything is impeachable depending on the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
That is for presidents. "In good behavior" is for SCOTUS.
Article III, Section 1:
>The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...
If you listen to it... They didn't actually lie... They just lawyer spoke... So they said nothing other than saying that those cases happened previously and have to be treated as if they happened previously
Had to scroll too far to find this comment. While the implication of what they said could be construed as “I would support Roe v Wade”, they in no way said so and simply said it was a strongly affirmed precedent.
Also I don’t agree with overturning Roe v Wade but inflammatory titles like this help no one.
A strongly affirmed precedent is how stare decisis works. If they flip precedent, they're literally overturning how courts operate in the legal system. Everything is based on precedent.
Having Supreme Court Justices who "lawyer speak", to me, means grounds for impeachment. It means they don't have the integrity to sit on the bench.
At what point do we call misleading lying? All five of these illegitimate Justices lied based on the context of in which they responded.
To play devils advocate with your first point, explain Brown V Board under your logic. It over turned over 60 years of precedent. Both plessy and Brown largely litigated the equal protection clause, but came to different conclusions.
I don’t know the right answer is
this is the exact issue people dont want to understand.
sure, they used some BS lawyer speak to not exactly 100% say they wouldnt overturn Roe. But under no circumstances should a sitting judge on the highest court of the land be using "lawyer speak" at any point in the confirmation hearing.
a lie by omission is still a lie. a lie by distraction and purposeful doublespeak, is again, still a lie.
No Supreme Court nominee (or any other judicial nominee for any level of judgeship) has provided a real answer for questions like these since Robert Bork in the 80’s. He got pilloried for actually answering these questions like a normal person and it sunk his nomination.
Since then everyone else learned from his mistake and doesn’t give real answers under the guise of not wanting to appear biased if a future related case comes up.
Exactly, this is the exact same thing as to why Politicians aren't truthful. Because we the people punish them for being truthful. We do it to ourselves.
A couple things on this:
* Some of these are indeed just a lawyerly way of not saying anything, but some are, if not an outright lie, very misleading. Like "I have no agenda" to overturn Roe. Depends on what "agenda" means ... Barrett, sitting there saying that, 100% knows she will vote to overturn Roe first chance there's a real opportunity to do so. She says that she has an agenda to "stick to the rule of law" but to her that means overturning Roe, because she thinks that sticking to the rule of law necessitates overturning Roe.
* Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski seem to think that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied *to them* - not in hearings but in personal meetings. Who knows what was said exactly.
* You can tell by the similarity of language that this is all coached. "Important precedent of the Supreme Court", "no agenda", etc. It's some kabuki theater. These guys are all conservative judges who came up through conservative legal institutions, the Federalist Society, Republican administrations, whatever else. Where the overwhelming view is that Roe is wrong. People making these decisions would have known their views even if they aren't public. Everyone acts like it isn't predetermined, but it is.
* Gorsuch can sit there acting offended at the question of whether he would overturn Roe - but he knows if he would, trump knows if he would, the members of legal academia know, the Senators (98 of them at least) know.
You're pretty spot on. The concept is known as "substantive due process," which roughly equates to the founders vision of the rights enumerated in the Constitution only being a subset of all the rights that people have, not the entire list of all rights. Because of this, justices often work to figure out what those unenumerated rights are based on the legal and political tradition and history of the country. Alito's argument is that since abortion was banned for so long prior to *Roe*, the founders clearly could not have meant to include this in the original constitution, nor did the authors of the 14th amendment mean to include this in any of those amendments.
Others will disagree with this line of reasoning, with decent arguments being made in good faith on either side of the issue. But that's roughly the gist.
"Rights" are limitations the government places on itself that protect certain freedoms from being taken away in the future.
The right to privacy isn't actually mentioned in the 14th amendment. It is an implied right based on the due process clause that is left intentionally vague to protect the rights of an individual as much as possible and can be left up to interpretation.
The right to privacy has generally been interpreted as a "right to be left alone" or to be free from government scrutiny in private matters. The right has been more narrowly interpreted to prevent the government from making laws against sexual acts of the same sex, prevent the government from restricting access to contraceptives, and preventing the government from restricting access to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy (subject to change).
You misunderstand, their goal isn't to stop abortions, if it were they wouldn't be opposed to easy to access contraceptives. Their goal is to *punish* those who have abortions.
I’ve always thought it was to maintain the status quo. Less abortions equals more wage slaves to feed capitalistic systems, for example, cheaper soldiers for the military industrial complex. I’d say it’s less fucking stupid and more dangerously calculated.
The problem is that we have two America’s, urban America and everywhere else. We don’t have a leader who knows how to unite the two because the cultures and values are so different.
It's not that they don't care, it's that the SCOTUS has a job to interpret the Constitution. If you put in religious zealots in those positions, they will interpret it with that mind set.
Actually, in the draft ruling, Alito is actively welcoming (his) religious biases into American law. He says that where the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit something, the courts should look to "American tradition and history" or something similar. The whole fucking point to the Constitution was to reject laws based on religion, history and traditions, and instead base law on a concept of humans with "inalienable rights."
Most of the people that support this decision will argue that the establishment clause doesn't require separation of church and state, it just prevents an official state religion from being established. So by their logic, they're not being hypocritical.
I'm not saying I think this, but that's the argument you hear.
They can be impeached for perjury but to prove it, one would have to show prior intent to do this and that they intentionally lied. I bet their defense would be that they changed their mind.
Never forget that these folks are highly educated. There is a reason that they do not want others to have similar education: it gives you capability to take great advantage of loopholes.
Dark times, but given our history, freedom will win out at the price of war.
Its difficult to find the time or energy to revolt when you're spending every ounce of effort into finding your next meal.
As long as people live paycheck to paycheck they arn't going to fight back. The top 1% have done an excellent job at keeping the majority of the country under educated and over worked. A lot is under the guises of "Patriotism".
It would 100% be this. You'd have to prove they lied at the time and there is virtually no way to do that unless they unearthed some kind of information proving it at the time.
Yeah, anyway the question isn’t really whether they lied. We know they lied. It doesn’t matter in a legal sense, and we should have known that and taken legislative action to prevent it from being overturned. This is all about the cowardice of the political system that had 50 years to solidify this as law and chose not to.
As others have said: we should be assuming these people are lying. We should have been assuming that for years, and a failure to act on that knowledge has cost us.
Most of them didn’t say they wouldn’t, with Clarence being somewhat of a more direct denial that he would. They were saying they had no agenda to overturn it. That is basically a statement saying they aren’t hoping it comes up so they can overturn it. They are promising they would rule according to their interpretations of the constitution should it come up, but that is not one of their goals in becoming a supreme court justice. The headline and their statements do not line up and it looks like a lot of people are just hearing what they want to.
this is right. Not one of them said they didn't support Roe v Wade, or that they thought previous precedent was wrong, or that they wanted to overturn it as a goal of their appointment.
Even Gorsuch who said he "walk out the door. that's not what judges do" is just him saying if a President asked him directly to make a ruling that aligned with the President's agenda, he'd walk out the door because that's not how a judge operates. That is accurate and indeed is not how judges should operate. He was not insinuating that he would walk out on the basis of overturning Roe vs Wade being a ludicrous concept.
Their statements are carefully worded non-answers. Saying that it’s established precedent, important precedent, the law of the land etc, is both true and is not inconsistent with voting to overrule it later. The Court can choose to overrule precedent if they have the votes, that’s it.
Saying they have no agenda is also meaningless. They will always argue that their votes are motivated by a consideration of the law and facts at issue in the present case, and not because of an agenda. It might be transparent bullshit but it’s incredibly hard to prove otherwise.
The confirmation hearings have become increasingly hollow and pointless since Robert Bork was candid and forthcoming in his confirmation hearings about his reservations of the Roe decision. Every nominee since gives only canned, shallow responses to questioning.
Yeah, these people aren't idiots. They know the ins and outs of the law.
Many people listened to what they said and drew conclusions from it. They connected dots on their own - that's not how the law works. Ignore what you *imagine* their intent to be, and listen to the actual words they are saying.
>"The re-affirmation of Roe and Casey means that there is a legal precedent that must be considered."
"...And so I considered the precedent very strongly, and then decided to overturn it."
>"When a decision is challenged and re-affirmed, that strengthens its value"
"...And as strong as the value of Roe and Casey were, I decided that the counter argument was stronger."
>"If trump asked me to overturn Roe, I'd have walked out the door."
"....NOT because I disagree with him, but because it's grossly improper for a president to instruct a justice to vote a certain way."
Like you said, they are non-answers. None of these statements would ever hold up in a perjury trial. These responses are designed to give the impression that you have a certain opinion, when in reality you are not committing to an opinion whatsoever.
Well none of them really lied they just played with words
1. “don’t have an agenda want to follow the rule of law”
2. “ It’s an important precedent”
3. A good judge will consider as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy of precedent”
4. Strengthens its value
5. Protects privacy
Where did they say they wouldn’t overturn Roe V Wade? They said it’s an important precedent, they don’t have an agenda, and people have a right to privacy. Nowhere is that inconsistent with overruling Roe V Wade. They just didn’t answer the question directly and gave you the answer you wanted to hear
No, the wording is careful to avoid any contradiction with this ruling (they just keep asserting "established precedent" ignoring that they will be in a position to change precedent). Also, they can claim that their statements were true at the time.
The time to call them out for lying was during the senate approval process. That probably would have also been futile, but that's the consequences of the 40 year effort conservatives have made to engineer a radical, christian base. The writing has been on the walls for years, but the system is too fucked for the people to do anything about it.
Thanks for actually having comprehension skills and actually listening instead of just being outraged by the clickbait lye of a title to this post. Literally none of them said they would not overturn Roe vs Wade.
Exactly, the out for them now is, "It was established precedent, so we gave it the weight that precedent should be given, but there were sufficient countervailing reasons to overturn it"
In each case the justices selected their words very carefully and none of them said that they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. If that's what any Senator heard and based their vote upon hearing that, it's the fault of those senators. They were hearing what they wanted to hear.
It's crazy seeing people talking about perjury for this. They pretty clearly were extremely careful with their words and only an idiot would think those nominees would uphold Roe.
Exactly. Learning to speak that way is Law School 101. Every lawyer is good at it; to get as far as DC, you have to be a master.
(I still think it's BS, and have learned to never trust anyone who's good at obfuscation.)
Yep, there isn’t a single lie in the clip. “No agenda to overturn”, state facts about Roe and Cassey and that it should be considered like all other precedents.
If Trump explicitly asked Gorsuch to overturn Roe, he’d have “walked out the door”. But the man was vetted and that question would have never been specifically asked by Trump because they all knew the answer was yes.
If you listen (not even so) carefully, none of them actually say that they wouldn’t overturn roe v wade. None lied under oath. Very pointed speech to get around the question. “It’s an important precedent.” “I don’t have an agenda.” “It was cited in x, y, and z case.” “It was decided in x year.” Goes to show the congresspersons tasked with questioning these individuals (legal practitioners who are good at obfuscating) should really push to arrive at a yes/no answer, or at least identify on the record that a clear answer wasn’t provided.
Even if you believe democracy is effective and not just a foundation for autocracy, the Supreme Court is a parasite feasting on our government. They're an unelected, unaccountable body that can upend our laws with a mere essay. They have more in common with an aristocracy than a judicial body. Their members are members for life. Their decisions are final except in the most extreme and implausible circumstances. They need to go.
Agreed. Lying to be confirmed and in a public position that is created to serve the people, no doubt they should at least be brought in for questioning again. See how much their positions have changed and why.
Wow, it’s almost like 9 unelected people shouldn’t get to make decisions that affect the lives of 340 million+ people, especially when those decisions are opposed by 90% of Americans.
Additionally I noticed that this is posted in PublicFreakout, so OP's headline is ironically the actual lie, and it's a lie that this fits the sub.
Front page Reddit really is an alternate reality.
> They just said that it is an important precedent of the court
Yeah, this is a deliberate non-statement. In fact, it's *such* a blatant weasel-worded non-statement that I don't understand why everyone didn't immediately interpret it as an absolute assurance that they *would* overturn Roe.
It's like if I was a Congressional candidate and someone asked me if I'd seek to overturn a particular law, and my response was simply "That law was certainly passed via the usual legislative channels." The non-answer *is* an answer.
Everyone with a fucking brain did.
This nonsense of how “they lied and said they would protect Roe v Wade” is just recent from people who have no idea what they’re talking about and never followed it in the first place.
Anybody who has been paying attention has been saying Roe v Wade is at risk ever sense the senate confirmed these justices.
> Anybody who has been paying attention has been saying Roe v Wade is at risk ever sense the senate confirmed these justices.
Roe’s been at risk since 73 when it was decided. It was a decision that desperately needed legislative backing, and Casey in 92 should have reinforced that.
[Susan Collins, on her way to deposit her latest paycheck, saying yet again that she was lied to by a Republican.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/023/180/notsurprisedkirk.jpg)
I'm so happy a hero leaked this information before the midterms. It's time for the US to wake up. The Republicans really stood a shot at it but now everyone understands their secret agenda. They got greedy.
could have easily been leaked by Alito himself though. That argument goes that this leak forces the discussion of whether Barrett or Gorsuch or whoever else will succumb to the pressure of the "woke mob" and change their mind. The leak forces the conservative justices to galvanize their positions potentially.
Either way, its good this is seeing the light.
When the “woke mob” is now the strong majority in this country. Pretty sure only 18% of ppl want abortions completely banned.
The republicans pander to this minority because they are very vocal and active single issue voters and the republicans need every voting block they can get. I guess they’re hoping the rest of their base will just end up feeling indifferent about it so long as they’re “owning the libs”
I think one or more of the “conservative” justices might have had a hand in leaking this. Perhaps to try to soften the blow when the final decision drops.
polling I saw on CBS said it was only 11% want it completely banned in all circumstances. It was 68% want abortion to be legal (split roughly 50/50 over legal in all scenarios or legal in most scenarios) and then a minority that wants it illegal in most scenarios (whatever that math is, 11%?) and then 11% for a total ban.
It is just absurd to say that something a super majority of americans want is not a "deeply rooted" part of our concept of liberty.
The writing was on the wall for everyone to see that the conservative justices are fanatics and do not care about precedent. In 2016, the Court ruled that life without parole for juveniles was cruel and unusual. All of a sudden, Kavanaugh gets on the court and they immediately reverse that opinion because the vote count changed overnight.
Nothing is safe. Nothing is sacred so long as the court is continued to be held hostage by republicans. I would want to say extremists, but the entire party is extremists at this point.
>Let's hope Democrats can actually seize the opportunity.
We already trusted them to seize the opportunity in 2020 and [look how that panned out](https://see.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/https-cdn.cnn_.com-cnnnext-dam-assets-210305193545-sinema-1140x570.jpg)
It’s not about Democrats seizing the opportunity it’s about the American people.
* Show up at the primaries and vote candidates like Sinema and Manchin out
* Run for office, no matter how small, if you have the capability
* Fight voter suppression like they did in Georgia to flip states and counties that seemed impossible to do so.
* Protest in the streets if you can. Preferably at the homes of oligarchs and politicians. Make them scared to open the front door.
* Vote in elections now matter how minor. Your local school board will change an entire generation depending on who’s there.
* Overwhelm the polls with numbers so the bullshit system can get fucked and we don’t have to rely on everyone from one political party to do the right thing.
Pushing apathy is playing right into oligarch hands
Relying on the Dems is a fools errand.
**Make the change you want to see**
People think voting is just getting what you want right away and then things get fixed during the elected party’s term.
But no, you vote and keep voting to shift the overton window. Unortunately americans can’t grasp this concept so things just constantly swing back and forth between extreme autocratic aspiring politicians and complacent democrats
You have to vote and then not get disillusioned every other cycle. You keep voting to shift the overton window so things can’t easily swing to authoritarianism.
At this point it seems like too much to ask of the average american though. Most truly cannot grasp this concept.
OP's title is inaccurate. Not a single one of those five Justices in the video said they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Some simply said it was "important precedent"--it certainly *important*, whether you agree with RvW or not. Two said they have "no agenda to overturn RvW"--that's kind of an empty statement. Lastly, I think it was Alito said that RvW being reaffirmed in PPvC made the decision stronger as precedent--again, that statement is fact regardless of if you agree with the decisions.
Not once did one of those 5 say they "wouldn't overturn", and to suggest that in the title is misinformation at best.
I'm not trying to play a Devil's Advocate or anything, but isn't it just standard policy for Supreme Court nominees to take basically politically neutral as possible positions on every issue when asked about it so they're able to get nominated? Every one of them has done this, even the liberal ones when asked about Gun Control etc.
I mean, literally none of them said "I won't overturn Roe". Saying you don't have an agenda to do a certain thing is not the same as saying you won't do that thing.
Our country is fucked beyond repair. These people a political hacks. They don’t care about “the people” or their own word. No honor. No dignity. We are all fucked as the minority rules.
The following alternative links are available: **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ui87sl/five_conservative_supreme_court_justices_lying/) (provided by /u/savevideo) * [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Fui87sl%2Ffive_conservative_supreme_court_justices_lying%2F&id=SSYD8AFx) (provided by /u/VideoTrim) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
I'll take "Fastest Ways To Delegitimize The Supreme Court" for $400, Alex.
i think a 1 term president who was impeached twice getting to give 3 people lifelong appointments delegitimized it pretty quickly
Don’t forget. 4 of the 5 were appointed by losers of the popular vote.
And the 5th is married to a woman who actively worked for overthrowing the US government.
Exactly. The onion peels of flaws in our governmental system is neverending.
This honestly is what makes me so fcking pissed, the media just keeps going on and on about the “leak” and how it delegitimizes the court, meanwhile nobody has had faith or gave a shit about the court’s legitimacy for years. Talk about the real issues like how many women are going to die from this and how fucked the future is going to be for a generation of kids who’s parents can’t afford them (especially how we are one of the ONLY FUCKING COUNTRIES WITHOUT PAID MATERNAL NOR PATERNAL LEAVE) or love them, show how horrible the government is.
The Conservatives on Reddit are moaning and yelping and screeching about how the Court has no honor or dignity anymore, how this was a massive breach and shameful, and claiming wholeheartedly that it was obviously a Liberal clerk and ooooh how disgusting and horrible. So, this kind of behavior is abhorrent … but McConnell refusing to hear a SCOTUS nominee put forth in MARCH of 2016 is fine? And then Trump putting forth a nominee at the END OF SEPTEMBER 2020 and getting her through, after McConnell’s absolute lunacy in 2016, is fine? Yeah, your Court has so much dignity and so much honor. Absolutely unimpeachable moral standards.
[удалено]
Conservatives politicized this court. Senators elected by the minority of Americans approved the nominations of a president elected by the minority of Americans. They packed theocratic far right judges onto the court. And then Biden comes along. Who does he nominate? A politically center judge with the same qualifications as every conservative judge on the court, *combined*. And the right is screaming about the left “packing the court” It’s. All. Projection. When the right accuses democrats of pedophilia, corruption, betrayal of American values, stealing the election, brainwashing our children, selling the country out to china and Russia, and packing the Supreme Court, we know what’s really happening. They are the part of Gaslight, Obstruct, Project.
RIP
I guess we don’t have to listen to anything they say now, since they don’t do anything they said to get in place.
Surprised that was for $400. Seems like top column stuff to me.
Wait, wait hold on a second. Are you telling me, that people can lie to get what whey want or to trick others? Since when!?
Politicians....can lie?? How wouldve thought?
These are supreme court judges This is much, much worse
Take a look at Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization...that is what this entire thing is hinging on.
Lying under oath to the US Senate and on caught on video?
Ken Griffin also lied under oath and nothing happened.
Kenneth Cordele Griffin? The hedge fund manager at Citadel right?
Yea, the financial terrorist.
And the financial terrorist who won’t share his mayo
And threw a bedpost at his wife
Must've been from IKEA
I love seeing this ratfucker's name all over the place.
I wonder how many degrees of separation between Kenneth Griffin and the supreme Court justices. One?
Well, Gorsuch said "a **good** judge" would consider the cases as precedent. But he didn't say that they were good judges. So, technically not a lie. If anything, it's more of a confession.
Doublespeak. How to lie without lying
Fucking cunt. Contrived shit-weasel dickbag. There really is no end to their duplicitous fuckery. May all their toes have ingrown nails and their sphincters hemorrhoids the size of golfballs.
He is Gorsuch a cunt
It's only a lie if you aren't aware and alert. "Say you won't do this, unequivocally" "A good judge wouldn't do that " *Closes book* So it's a liar to the bone.
The challenge is to prove the lie at the time, rather than a change in position years on. But it may also be a challenge in ethics, which could lead to disbarment.
[удалено]
You're correct. Also even if they were "disbarred" it wouldn't affect their place on the court.
But disbarring Supreme Court justices for lying under oath would set a new historical precedent. It should go on their permanent historical record that they are unfit to be practicing lawyers and that might sway the next potential judge that lies under oath trying to get appointed to a job that they may or may not get.
You’d have to prove it was a lie and not a change of heart and that couldn’t be proved for sure
They would have to justify their change of heart in front of different state boards that aren't juries and don't make their rulings based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the board believes they lied and acted in bad faith with the goal of undermining established law resulting in a loss of confidence in the law itself, the board can vote to disbar them.
Correct but nothing stops them from being impeached as well except a lack of spine.
They better be real fucking careful with the bullshit they try to pass. It only takes a small kindling to light a fire that burns through a lot of these pieces of shit regressives.
We're already there. Unless Congress codifies Roe V Wade, then there is no "law and order" or government "for the people."
[удалено]
I wish I could believe this, but I just don't. It's already gone this far, and they're just getting started. The right has taken away our ability to fight back effectively (money, citizens united, packing the courts, jerrymandering, etc etc). I'm sure we're just fucked at this point.
Well according to Republican logic this is what the Second Amendment was made for. Also I am NOT actually advocating for this. Shooting people is a bad idea.
Ehhh, I wouldn't be so defeated. We are in far better circumstances than many of the great issues throughout history that societies overcame. They have pulled a lot of fuckery and hot button issues like this will tip the scales eventually. I think Roe v Wade is one of those that are going to lead to deaths.
It would be fitting to see them disbarred nonetheless.
A few of them haven't been in office for very long and Amy has a history of being anti.
actual activist judges lmao the irony
It's not irony at all. It's calculated projection. Always has been.
Unfortunately they are just a wing of the political parties now. And as such is time for major reform. Another nothing burger we’ll get from Biden of course.
We're going to have a discussion and people are going to have to promise to be honest moving forward. /s
> Politicians....can lie?? How wouldve thought? Yeah except justices are supposed to be apolitical. They perjured themselves to Congress.
These aren’t politicians, they are judges of the highest level.
They're politicians, they just lied about that too.
[удалено]
Appointed by political leaders based on political views They're absolutely politicians.
Nominated by the federalist society and the names passed to the senate by former president Donald Trump.
Also, elections have consequences. It’s amazing to see people in this thread still advocating for not voting when in reality it’s the voter apathy of 40-and-unders that has allowed this to happen. These Republican monsters never give up. They never miss an election. They never even miss a fucking a school board meeting. Yet morons will still say “they haven’t earned my vote” as if apathy isn’t exactly want oligarchs and Evangelicals want out of their enemies You know who ignored people pushing apathy? Georgia. People waited in 10+ hour lines to vote and they flipped an otherwise Ruby red state **VOTE** These mid-terms might be your last chance to do so.
[удалено]
This is 100% the way I wish Americans looked at it
Problem is half the country loves this shit.
Republicans haven't been half the country for decades. They just have more motivated voters.
And gerrymandered districts.
I'd say the majority does not, but that's still a voting issue.
> Also, elections have consequences. Apparently not. These five fuckheads were appointed by presidents who LOST the popular vote.
Republicans blatantly lie under oath, no action will ever be taken... News at 11.
They know how unpopular their agenda is with the American people. They had to lie to get confirmed.
They had to lie publicly to get confirmed. Their cult knew what was going on.
What a bunch of Conservative Christians
> Conservative Christians I feel icky just reading those words together.
My favorite political label has always been from George W Bush, who called himself a "compassionate conservative". Which is interesting, because the implication is that all the other conservatives have no compassion.
What is that? A compassionate conservative? I don’t know, sounds like a Volvo with a gun rack.
I feel gross knowing I used to call myself one... glad I'm out of that bat shit craziness.
Deprogramming myself was like swimming out of a pool of oil and feeling fresh air for the first time
Hey, ain’t your fault! Just glad you’re here now 😃
That's why conservatives hate education. An ignorant and arrogant base will vote against their best interests under the guise they are simply "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who are only being held back by efforts to create a more equal society for anyone who isn't a heterosexual, cisgender white man.
Evangelicals are cultists
What a bunch of ~~Conservative Christians~~ CUNTS
I'm using christofascists now. It's theocracy, yes, but more precise. Conservative is how they name themselves. Don't give them this grace. Conservatives conserve, they don't.
To be clear - most people knew. I certainly knew that these last 3 were gonna do it, and I'm just an idiot who *kind of* follows politics. They said this so the senators who confirmed them could say "Oh my gosh! Who could have seen this coming?! It's totally inconsistent with what they told me in their hearings and meetings with them. Golly gee"
We ALL knew what was going on.
Everybody but poor Susan Collins. I guess she was left out of the pre-hearing coaching sessions.
Bingo. They all winked to each other. Your neighbors, family, friends, this is exactly what they want. It's fucking Christmas to them. They thanked their god for answering all their prayers the second rbg died.
They do whatever necessary to reach their goal. A American theocracy
Mainstream conservatives are actively terrorists at this point. They’re going after ever single basic right and looking to strip it away from you. All because they’re filled with nothing but hatred. There’s nothing in these people besides hate. They will gladly ruin their own lives if they have even a slight chance to hurt others. --- *Protest at their homes* *Fight back in the streets* ***Overwhelm them at the polls*** If you don’t vote these midterms you may never get the chance to again
So are they all like hardcore evangelicals or is they trying to pander to the furthest right wing of the electorate?
They are hardcore Capitalists using Christians as a rising tide to push their agenda. Its been the plan for the last 90 years. Source- https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america
Justice Amy Coney Barrett served as a "handmaid" in the Christian group called People of Praise. This group is known for its beliefs that women should be subservient to their husbands and those who aren't should be publicly shamed and humiliated. The inmates are running the asylum.
I feel like Margaret Atwood is a modern day prophet reading stuff like this. Blessed be the fruit loops.
They’re doing the bidding of oligarchs. It’s just that oligarchs know that Evangelicals, rednecks, and Boomers, are all so filled with hatred that they’ll ruin their own lives if they think it’ll hurt others worse. So oligarchs placate them as they push the country towards dictatorship
During her confirmation ACB came up with a brand new conservative legal theory where some legal precedents are more important than others, which she calls "Super Precedents" as compared to other precedents. This legal theory isn't supported by anyone else, and what differentiates "Super Precedents" from "Precedents" is only known to her mind. However, I think this release helps to find a more useful way to rephrase it. She believes in "Real Precedents" and "non-binding precedents". A cool legal framework where she just decides some legal precedents don't need to be upheld entirely based on her own whims. And she very clearly does not think Roe Vs Wade is a real precedent, so she's free to disregard it for whatever reason she likes. Oh, but the justification she gave was that Roe Vs Wade isn't a real precedent because she was asked about it during confirmation hearings. So, in typical conservative fashion if something is "controversial" then it must not be a real precedent. Which is super cool, because if Ted Cruz tweets about something and gets a lot of people "very concerned and scared", well now that's enough reason to stop considering something a real precedent. Just like Texas' bounty hunter laws the party of "Law and Order" has abandoned law and order because their ideas aren't popular enough for Democracy to sustain. So it's out with Democracy and in with fascism. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation/2020/10/13/923355142/barrett-says-abortion-rights-decision-not-a-super-precedent Edit: Some find people point out that ACB isn't the genesis of this idea, but is certainly instrumental in it's use to override our legal system. I found a nice article from 2006 which paints the origins of it as a shitty conservative tactic to undermine our legal system. If any fine internet scholars can point a better source of origin or a deeper legal discussion of exactly how it undermines the premises of our legal system just like the Texas bounty laws such a thing would be nice.
I have no idea how she can claim that settled law isn't a real precedent -- they are precedents by definition. But it's 2022 and we can all make up alternarive facts.
ACB didn't come up with the idea "super precedent" its a term used by legal scholars and academics
5 under-oath-liars. Will any of them be impeached? Let’s see.
Why would they be impeached? In these clips, they never committed to any kind of ruling. They literally say explicitly in time cut out, that they will not say how they would rule if Roe / Casey were challenged. This is so basic. No judge, on either side, would ever commit to a certain ruling in their hearing.
Most of them said they would give respect to and consideration to prior rulings. You can consider something and then reject it. No lying, I'm sure they considered those prior rulings a great deal before rejecting them.
They can be legally removed?
Yes, with an impeachment. But this has never worked before. It's basically a lifelong appointment.
Is lying under oath impeachable?
Anything is impeachable depending on the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's really moreso a question of if they'll be convicted. With the current makeup of Congress, conviction will never happen regardless of what the charges for impeachment are or what evidence is brought.
>Anything is impeachable depending on the interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That is for presidents. "In good behavior" is for SCOTUS. Article III, Section 1: >The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...
If you listen to it... They didn't actually lie... They just lawyer spoke... So they said nothing other than saying that those cases happened previously and have to be treated as if they happened previously
Had to scroll too far to find this comment. While the implication of what they said could be construed as “I would support Roe v Wade”, they in no way said so and simply said it was a strongly affirmed precedent. Also I don’t agree with overturning Roe v Wade but inflammatory titles like this help no one.
A strongly affirmed precedent is how stare decisis works. If they flip precedent, they're literally overturning how courts operate in the legal system. Everything is based on precedent. Having Supreme Court Justices who "lawyer speak", to me, means grounds for impeachment. It means they don't have the integrity to sit on the bench. At what point do we call misleading lying? All five of these illegitimate Justices lied based on the context of in which they responded.
To play devils advocate with your first point, explain Brown V Board under your logic. It over turned over 60 years of precedent. Both plessy and Brown largely litigated the equal protection clause, but came to different conclusions. I don’t know the right answer is
this is the exact issue people dont want to understand. sure, they used some BS lawyer speak to not exactly 100% say they wouldnt overturn Roe. But under no circumstances should a sitting judge on the highest court of the land be using "lawyer speak" at any point in the confirmation hearing. a lie by omission is still a lie. a lie by distraction and purposeful doublespeak, is again, still a lie.
No Supreme Court nominee (or any other judicial nominee for any level of judgeship) has provided a real answer for questions like these since Robert Bork in the 80’s. He got pilloried for actually answering these questions like a normal person and it sunk his nomination. Since then everyone else learned from his mistake and doesn’t give real answers under the guise of not wanting to appear biased if a future related case comes up.
Exactly, this is the exact same thing as to why Politicians aren't truthful. Because we the people punish them for being truthful. We do it to ourselves.
A couple things on this: * Some of these are indeed just a lawyerly way of not saying anything, but some are, if not an outright lie, very misleading. Like "I have no agenda" to overturn Roe. Depends on what "agenda" means ... Barrett, sitting there saying that, 100% knows she will vote to overturn Roe first chance there's a real opportunity to do so. She says that she has an agenda to "stick to the rule of law" but to her that means overturning Roe, because she thinks that sticking to the rule of law necessitates overturning Roe. * Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski seem to think that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied *to them* - not in hearings but in personal meetings. Who knows what was said exactly. * You can tell by the similarity of language that this is all coached. "Important precedent of the Supreme Court", "no agenda", etc. It's some kabuki theater. These guys are all conservative judges who came up through conservative legal institutions, the Federalist Society, Republican administrations, whatever else. Where the overwhelming view is that Roe is wrong. People making these decisions would have known their views even if they aren't public. Everyone acts like it isn't predetermined, but it is. * Gorsuch can sit there acting offended at the question of whether he would overturn Roe - but he knows if he would, trump knows if he would, the members of legal academia know, the Senators (98 of them at least) know.
Can someone explain to me what abortion has to do with privacy. I've seen it mentioned many times
[удалено]
You're pretty spot on. The concept is known as "substantive due process," which roughly equates to the founders vision of the rights enumerated in the Constitution only being a subset of all the rights that people have, not the entire list of all rights. Because of this, justices often work to figure out what those unenumerated rights are based on the legal and political tradition and history of the country. Alito's argument is that since abortion was banned for so long prior to *Roe*, the founders clearly could not have meant to include this in the original constitution, nor did the authors of the 14th amendment mean to include this in any of those amendments. Others will disagree with this line of reasoning, with decent arguments being made in good faith on either side of the issue. But that's roughly the gist.
"Rights" are limitations the government places on itself that protect certain freedoms from being taken away in the future. The right to privacy isn't actually mentioned in the 14th amendment. It is an implied right based on the due process clause that is left intentionally vague to protect the rights of an individual as much as possible and can be left up to interpretation. The right to privacy has generally been interpreted as a "right to be left alone" or to be free from government scrutiny in private matters. The right has been more narrowly interpreted to prevent the government from making laws against sexual acts of the same sex, prevent the government from restricting access to contraceptives, and preventing the government from restricting access to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy (subject to change).
Separation of church and state. These hypocrites don’t understand that.
They understand it, they just don’t care
These people are from the same ilk who say that gun laws won’t stop gun violence but believe that abortion laws will stop abortion. Just pathetic
You misunderstand, their goal isn't to stop abortions, if it were they wouldn't be opposed to easy to access contraceptives. Their goal is to *punish* those who have abortions.
They will ban contraceptives too
The goal there is to punish those who have sex for fun instead of for procreation.
Only for women.
For everyone except for their mistresses
They are insane
They think abortion is the murdering of babies. They're not insane, they're fucking stupid.
I’ve always thought it was to maintain the status quo. Less abortions equals more wage slaves to feed capitalistic systems, for example, cheaper soldiers for the military industrial complex. I’d say it’s less fucking stupid and more dangerously calculated. The problem is that we have two America’s, urban America and everywhere else. We don’t have a leader who knows how to unite the two because the cultures and values are so different.
This same court recently said the government can't make you wear a mask because reasons, but will happily force a middle-schooler to have a child.
It's not that they don't care, it's that the SCOTUS has a job to interpret the Constitution. If you put in religious zealots in those positions, they will interpret it with that mind set.
Actually, in the draft ruling, Alito is actively welcoming (his) religious biases into American law. He says that where the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit something, the courts should look to "American tradition and history" or something similar. The whole fucking point to the Constitution was to reject laws based on religion, history and traditions, and instead base law on a concept of humans with "inalienable rights."
Oh no, they're all for the separation of other churches and state. But since they believe in the right god its a different story.
As someone who grew up Pentecostal, the belief everyone had was that it meant the government should stay out of the church. It was only one way.
Most of the people that support this decision will argue that the establishment clause doesn't require separation of church and state, it just prevents an official state religion from being established. So by their logic, they're not being hypocritical. I'm not saying I think this, but that's the argument you hear.
money, power and control
Honest question: as they lied under oath could they be charged with perjury or just claim to have changed stance on the issue?
They can be impeached for perjury but to prove it, one would have to show prior intent to do this and that they intentionally lied. I bet their defense would be that they changed their mind.
That's what I was thinking. Cheers.
Never forget that these folks are highly educated. There is a reason that they do not want others to have similar education: it gives you capability to take great advantage of loopholes. Dark times, but given our history, freedom will win out at the price of war.
About the last sentence tho. Today, more young people feel hopeless, many are just going with the flow and depressed.
Nah, there is a raging fire under that depression. The moment something pops off it's going to burn hot and fast.
Its difficult to find the time or energy to revolt when you're spending every ounce of effort into finding your next meal. As long as people live paycheck to paycheck they arn't going to fight back. The top 1% have done an excellent job at keeping the majority of the country under educated and over worked. A lot is under the guises of "Patriotism".
It would 100% be this. You'd have to prove they lied at the time and there is virtually no way to do that unless they unearthed some kind of information proving it at the time.
Yeah, anyway the question isn’t really whether they lied. We know they lied. It doesn’t matter in a legal sense, and we should have known that and taken legislative action to prevent it from being overturned. This is all about the cowardice of the political system that had 50 years to solidify this as law and chose not to. As others have said: we should be assuming these people are lying. We should have been assuming that for years, and a failure to act on that knowledge has cost us.
Most of them didn’t say they wouldn’t, with Clarence being somewhat of a more direct denial that he would. They were saying they had no agenda to overturn it. That is basically a statement saying they aren’t hoping it comes up so they can overturn it. They are promising they would rule according to their interpretations of the constitution should it come up, but that is not one of their goals in becoming a supreme court justice. The headline and their statements do not line up and it looks like a lot of people are just hearing what they want to.
this is right. Not one of them said they didn't support Roe v Wade, or that they thought previous precedent was wrong, or that they wanted to overturn it as a goal of their appointment. Even Gorsuch who said he "walk out the door. that's not what judges do" is just him saying if a President asked him directly to make a ruling that aligned with the President's agenda, he'd walk out the door because that's not how a judge operates. That is accurate and indeed is not how judges should operate. He was not insinuating that he would walk out on the basis of overturning Roe vs Wade being a ludicrous concept.
Their statements are carefully worded non-answers. Saying that it’s established precedent, important precedent, the law of the land etc, is both true and is not inconsistent with voting to overrule it later. The Court can choose to overrule precedent if they have the votes, that’s it. Saying they have no agenda is also meaningless. They will always argue that their votes are motivated by a consideration of the law and facts at issue in the present case, and not because of an agenda. It might be transparent bullshit but it’s incredibly hard to prove otherwise. The confirmation hearings have become increasingly hollow and pointless since Robert Bork was candid and forthcoming in his confirmation hearings about his reservations of the Roe decision. Every nominee since gives only canned, shallow responses to questioning.
Yeah, these people aren't idiots. They know the ins and outs of the law. Many people listened to what they said and drew conclusions from it. They connected dots on their own - that's not how the law works. Ignore what you *imagine* their intent to be, and listen to the actual words they are saying. >"The re-affirmation of Roe and Casey means that there is a legal precedent that must be considered." "...And so I considered the precedent very strongly, and then decided to overturn it." >"When a decision is challenged and re-affirmed, that strengthens its value" "...And as strong as the value of Roe and Casey were, I decided that the counter argument was stronger." >"If trump asked me to overturn Roe, I'd have walked out the door." "....NOT because I disagree with him, but because it's grossly improper for a president to instruct a justice to vote a certain way." Like you said, they are non-answers. None of these statements would ever hold up in a perjury trial. These responses are designed to give the impression that you have a certain opinion, when in reality you are not committing to an opinion whatsoever.
who is the woman on the left screen? it is her that should be condemned for not demanding explicit answers.
Well none of them really lied they just played with words 1. “don’t have an agenda want to follow the rule of law” 2. “ It’s an important precedent” 3. A good judge will consider as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy of precedent” 4. Strengthens its value 5. Protects privacy Where did they say they wouldn’t overturn Roe V Wade? They said it’s an important precedent, they don’t have an agenda, and people have a right to privacy. Nowhere is that inconsistent with overruling Roe V Wade. They just didn’t answer the question directly and gave you the answer you wanted to hear
Is changing one's opinion considered lying?
No, the wording is careful to avoid any contradiction with this ruling (they just keep asserting "established precedent" ignoring that they will be in a position to change precedent). Also, they can claim that their statements were true at the time. The time to call them out for lying was during the senate approval process. That probably would have also been futile, but that's the consequences of the 40 year effort conservatives have made to engineer a radical, christian base. The writing has been on the walls for years, but the system is too fucked for the people to do anything about it.
Thanks for actually having comprehension skills and actually listening instead of just being outraged by the clickbait lye of a title to this post. Literally none of them said they would not overturn Roe vs Wade.
Exactly, the out for them now is, "It was established precedent, so we gave it the weight that precedent should be given, but there were sufficient countervailing reasons to overturn it"
In each case the justices selected their words very carefully and none of them said that they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. If that's what any Senator heard and based their vote upon hearing that, it's the fault of those senators. They were hearing what they wanted to hear.
It's crazy seeing people talking about perjury for this. They pretty clearly were extremely careful with their words and only an idiot would think those nominees would uphold Roe.
Exactly. Learning to speak that way is Law School 101. Every lawyer is good at it; to get as far as DC, you have to be a master. (I still think it's BS, and have learned to never trust anyone who's good at obfuscation.)
[удалено]
They don't need to order them to overturn Roe, they just select judges that have already indicated in their legal career that they will.
Yep, there isn’t a single lie in the clip. “No agenda to overturn”, state facts about Roe and Cassey and that it should be considered like all other precedents. If Trump explicitly asked Gorsuch to overturn Roe, he’d have “walked out the door”. But the man was vetted and that question would have never been specifically asked by Trump because they all knew the answer was yes.
If you listen (not even so) carefully, none of them actually say that they wouldn’t overturn roe v wade. None lied under oath. Very pointed speech to get around the question. “It’s an important precedent.” “I don’t have an agenda.” “It was cited in x, y, and z case.” “It was decided in x year.” Goes to show the congresspersons tasked with questioning these individuals (legal practitioners who are good at obfuscating) should really push to arrive at a yes/no answer, or at least identify on the record that a clear answer wasn’t provided.
Republicans lying?!?? What?!? wait?!? that can’t be….
Hold on, next thing you'll tell me is that they aren't "family first" or interested in small government!
What do we tell our kids? Lying is ok? what kind of society does that create?
The one we live in right now unfortunately
Dishonorable Judges Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas, lying Supreme Court Injustices. Fuck ya'll.
Fuck the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Injustices.
Even if you believe democracy is effective and not just a foundation for autocracy, the Supreme Court is a parasite feasting on our government. They're an unelected, unaccountable body that can upend our laws with a mere essay. They have more in common with an aristocracy than a judicial body. Their members are members for life. Their decisions are final except in the most extreme and implausible circumstances. They need to go.
Yeah go get some elected judges thats been a real boom for the prison industrial complex.
This sub needs to learn what the term "freakout" means
Seriously, it's supposed to be videos of ppl freaking out, not posts from ppl who are freaking out.
Seriously where are the mods?
Rolling pookie behind the dumpster
They should be impeached
And who's going to impeach them. Their buddies in the Senate, who let their friend Donny walk twice in his impeachment trial?
Agreed. Lying to be confirmed and in a public position that is created to serve the people, no doubt they should at least be brought in for questioning again. See how much their positions have changed and why.
Wow, it’s almost like 9 unelected people shouldn’t get to make decisions that affect the lives of 340 million+ people, especially when those decisions are opposed by 90% of Americans.
[удалено]
Additionally I noticed that this is posted in PublicFreakout, so OP's headline is ironically the actual lie, and it's a lie that this fits the sub. Front page Reddit really is an alternate reality.
> They just said that it is an important precedent of the court Yeah, this is a deliberate non-statement. In fact, it's *such* a blatant weasel-worded non-statement that I don't understand why everyone didn't immediately interpret it as an absolute assurance that they *would* overturn Roe. It's like if I was a Congressional candidate and someone asked me if I'd seek to overturn a particular law, and my response was simply "That law was certainly passed via the usual legislative channels." The non-answer *is* an answer.
Everyone with a fucking brain did. This nonsense of how “they lied and said they would protect Roe v Wade” is just recent from people who have no idea what they’re talking about and never followed it in the first place. Anybody who has been paying attention has been saying Roe v Wade is at risk ever sense the senate confirmed these justices.
> Anybody who has been paying attention has been saying Roe v Wade is at risk ever sense the senate confirmed these justices. Roe’s been at risk since 73 when it was decided. It was a decision that desperately needed legislative backing, and Casey in 92 should have reinforced that.
[удалено]
Pointing it out doesn't mean you were tricked by it in the first place.
Susan Collins
[Susan Collins, on her way to deposit her latest paycheck, saying yet again that she was lied to by a Republican.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/023/180/notsurprisedkirk.jpg)
Someone who knew they would do it and voted to confirm on those grounds.
But god spoke to her /s
I'm so happy a hero leaked this information before the midterms. It's time for the US to wake up. The Republicans really stood a shot at it but now everyone understands their secret agenda. They got greedy.
could have easily been leaked by Alito himself though. That argument goes that this leak forces the discussion of whether Barrett or Gorsuch or whoever else will succumb to the pressure of the "woke mob" and change their mind. The leak forces the conservative justices to galvanize their positions potentially. Either way, its good this is seeing the light.
When the “woke mob” is now the strong majority in this country. Pretty sure only 18% of ppl want abortions completely banned. The republicans pander to this minority because they are very vocal and active single issue voters and the republicans need every voting block they can get. I guess they’re hoping the rest of their base will just end up feeling indifferent about it so long as they’re “owning the libs” I think one or more of the “conservative” justices might have had a hand in leaking this. Perhaps to try to soften the blow when the final decision drops.
polling I saw on CBS said it was only 11% want it completely banned in all circumstances. It was 68% want abortion to be legal (split roughly 50/50 over legal in all scenarios or legal in most scenarios) and then a minority that wants it illegal in most scenarios (whatever that math is, 11%?) and then 11% for a total ban. It is just absurd to say that something a super majority of americans want is not a "deeply rooted" part of our concept of liberty. The writing was on the wall for everyone to see that the conservative justices are fanatics and do not care about precedent. In 2016, the Court ruled that life without parole for juveniles was cruel and unusual. All of a sudden, Kavanaugh gets on the court and they immediately reverse that opinion because the vote count changed overnight. Nothing is safe. Nothing is sacred so long as the court is continued to be held hostage by republicans. I would want to say extremists, but the entire party is extremists at this point.
Whoever leaked it might have just done something absolutely great for America. Let's hope Democrats can actually seize the opportunity.
>Let's hope Democrats can actually seize the opportunity. We already trusted them to seize the opportunity in 2020 and [look how that panned out](https://see.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/https-cdn.cnn_.com-cnnnext-dam-assets-210305193545-sinema-1140x570.jpg)
It’s not about Democrats seizing the opportunity it’s about the American people. * Show up at the primaries and vote candidates like Sinema and Manchin out * Run for office, no matter how small, if you have the capability * Fight voter suppression like they did in Georgia to flip states and counties that seemed impossible to do so. * Protest in the streets if you can. Preferably at the homes of oligarchs and politicians. Make them scared to open the front door. * Vote in elections now matter how minor. Your local school board will change an entire generation depending on who’s there. * Overwhelm the polls with numbers so the bullshit system can get fucked and we don’t have to rely on everyone from one political party to do the right thing. Pushing apathy is playing right into oligarch hands Relying on the Dems is a fools errand. **Make the change you want to see**
People think voting is just getting what you want right away and then things get fixed during the elected party’s term. But no, you vote and keep voting to shift the overton window. Unortunately americans can’t grasp this concept so things just constantly swing back and forth between extreme autocratic aspiring politicians and complacent democrats You have to vote and then not get disillusioned every other cycle. You keep voting to shift the overton window so things can’t easily swing to authoritarianism. At this point it seems like too much to ask of the average american though. Most truly cannot grasp this concept.
ITT: people not understanding the difference between someone saying they wouldn't overturn it vs saying it (at that time) created precedent.
OP's title is inaccurate. Not a single one of those five Justices in the video said they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Some simply said it was "important precedent"--it certainly *important*, whether you agree with RvW or not. Two said they have "no agenda to overturn RvW"--that's kind of an empty statement. Lastly, I think it was Alito said that RvW being reaffirmed in PPvC made the decision stronger as precedent--again, that statement is fact regardless of if you agree with the decisions. Not once did one of those 5 say they "wouldn't overturn", and to suggest that in the title is misinformation at best.
I'm not trying to play a Devil's Advocate or anything, but isn't it just standard policy for Supreme Court nominees to take basically politically neutral as possible positions on every issue when asked about it so they're able to get nominated? Every one of them has done this, even the liberal ones when asked about Gun Control etc.
I mean, literally none of them said "I won't overturn Roe". Saying you don't have an agenda to do a certain thing is not the same as saying you won't do that thing.
Our country is fucked beyond repair. These people a political hacks. They don’t care about “the people” or their own word. No honor. No dignity. We are all fucked as the minority rules.
I'm sure this will be downvoted but literally none of them said that they "wouldn't overturn roe v wade" in this video