Is there a citation showing what he said? Preferably a video of the question and answer?

Lie Detector.

Make sure the aren’t right-winger nut jobs first !

@seawulf575 Yes, I just saw it on the evening news. I’m on my phone and can’t link, but when I get to my PC I’ll link. And yes, that was me that gave you a GA because I give everyone a GA that answers my questions.

Who believed Kavanaugh wasn’t biased? All the Trump nominees were hired to careen the court (even further) right. To keep it from happening vote for Democrats. The GOP has become the party of religious fundamentalist white nationalists.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. Besides the Supreme Court, Trump put 200+ ideologues on Federal benches. Those are lifetime appointments.

Roe is just a start. Those judges were chosen specifically to (among other assaults) make racial segregation legal again.

@Call_Me_Jay Really? So you believe one of the most consistently conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, is going to vote to make racial segregation legal again? You need to stop believing rags like USA Today.

@seawulf575 Clarence Thomas is on record supporting segregation.

Just one example:

“Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the end of de jure segregation… there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

Also, you are now on record implying that segregation is bad. I guarantee you will support it when Republicans fight to bring it back.

RvW about the 50 second mark. It cuts off, but you can get the gist.

I believe Gorsuch and Barrett also said that Roe v. Wade was settled law and they wouldn’t touch it. I never believed that.

You would probably need a requirement that the court must have a 50/50 dem/rep composition, though you would further cement the 2 party system with it.

Since it is such an important, life long position, they should swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and it can be held against them for life, under penalty of death.

@kritiper Too fucking late !

TRUMP GETS HIS WAY !

^

They could practice some of that personal responsibility they’re always chiming on about to average people.

Average working people go for multiple decades without harassing women and being corrupt.

A perfect parallel to this is, when Walter Ulbricht, leader of East Germany, said in 1961:
“No one intends to build a wall”.
2 months later, they built the wall.

Kavanaugh’s nomination was bitterly contested precisely because anyone with an ounce of sense (from either side) understood the threat to Roe v Wade. With his confirmation we all knew it was simply a matter of time. Thus the secret drafts, of which there must be several. It’s a tricky business in this day and age devising language justifying the return of women once more to the status of livestock or pets.

Elect presidents who will nominate valid candidates with integrity, rather than shills for the Federalist Society’s picks.

@Love_my_doggie

I agree, and a major facilitator of that would be the elimination of the Electoral College.

The electoral college, just like the Senate are there to specifically counter actual democracy; a fact none of us are taught in school.

@Tropical_Willie “There’s always tomorrow…”
And next time.

@Call_Me_Jay What Thomas is saying is that segregation itself is not the problem. State Ordered Segregation is. If you are black and want to surround yourself with other blacks, there is nothing that says you cannot get every bit as good an education as if you are forced to go to a school that has whites and blacks. He is actually defending black people as being every bit as smart and capable as whites…something that the Brown decision opposed and used as its basis for its decision.

@chyna Thank you, but it was not the actual question and the full answer. It was a snippet, taken out of the middle. Kinda like “very fine people”. Yes, the words were said, but it was not how it was later portrayed.

@kritiper What you are suggesting is that once you say something that should be set in stone and anything you say or do later in your life that might go against that should be punishable under the law. Joe Biden said that he would overturn RvW. He said that women don’t have the sole right to say what happens to their bodies. So if he were to be presented with a bill codifying RvW into law and he signed it, should he then be impeached for lying?

Here is what the conservative justices said about Roe V Wade during their confirmation hearings.

@LostInParadise I read your citation and here’s what I see. In each and every case, they said the exact same thing in slightly different words. RvW has a lot of precedence which needs to be considered in any case having to do with it. That isn’t the same as saying “I will not overturn it”. If you go back and look at just about any SCOTUS nominee, they have said very similar things about a variety of topics. And it is appropriate for them to say these things. Every case is different and every case needs to be evaluated. Part of the evaluation is the precedence associated with it. But laws can be and have, in fact, been overturned many, many times in our nation’s history. Things change, opinions vary, evidence that is presented may impact, etc. A Justice is not, nor should they be, tied into only one opinion for all time. Nor should previous statements be misinterpreted as saying something that clearly was not said.

They may not have completely lied, but what they said was misleading. The implication was that there was nothing about Roe v Wade that required overturning the precedent.

That was not the implication at all. All they committed to was that they would consider the precedence in any case concerning it. The hyped up story is that they lied or that they hinted at something. They didn’t. They were being asked to commit to how they would rule which is foolishness on the part of the Senators asking the questions. But being asked to commit and telling them you would consider precedence as you do with all cases is not giving the Senators what they wanted.

And another thing to consider is that none of the Dems wanted the conservative justices to begin with. They don’t want the Constitution interpreted, they want someone that will rule on ideological slant…liberal ideological slant. So to say that anything the justices said made one whit of difference is naïve at best

@seawulf575 Joe Biden is not a Supreme Court justice.

So “settled law” like R v W is no longer “settled” does that mean people of color right to vote and the the right for women to vote are on the GOP agenda ??

YUPPERS ! !

Headed to 1841, stupid asses !

@kritiper That is true. But he is the POTUS. You don’t want to hold him to the same standard of honesty? Or is it only conservative SCOTUS Justices? Every justice swears to perform ethically. There are even rules about ethics for SCOTUS justices. Yet when Obergefell v Hodges was on the court docket, both RBG and Kagan were part of gay weddings. They should have recused themselves from the case based on ethics rules, yet they didn’t. I didn’t hear the outrage then.

@seawulf575 That’s nonsennse. Both justices participated in those ceremonies in jurisdictions where the proceedings were legal and sanctioned by law. That’s what drives me crazy about you and other conservatives, this constant repetition of the dinosaur problem.

@seawulf575 The question was about Supreme Court justices, not the POTUS.
What you seem to be saying is that whatever standard of honesty the Supreme Court is held to, the other two branches of government must to be held to as well and you’d never get all of the members of the Senate and House to do it, so it would be pointless to try.

@HP I’m curious. What is the dinosaur problem?

It’s about people who believe dinosaurs and men walked the earth together. Now I can’t claim these believers are necessarily always conservative, but when their kids tell you they want to be doctors, and you tell their parents the kid hasn’t a chance in hell, they bitterly complain it’s due to liberal bias. The wulf views the fact that people espousing such beliefs unlikely to attain a passing grade in a biology class at a CREDIBLE high school, let alone a university; this is mainstream leftist bias. And this follows for every complaint the wulf voices here right down the line. Switch to mainstream bias. The wulf whips out Fox and the New York Post as credible sources news. There was a time when to give him the benefit of the doubt I half seriously believed him hovering in a cave or cell somewhere poring day and night on the internet in pursuit of “research”. Let me stop here. BREVITY.

@HP the ethics is that justices are not supposed to participate in anything that relates to a case in the court docket. Since it WAS in the court docket and the whole case revolved around same-sex marriage, they should have recused themselves OR refused to participate in the events. Let’s say Amy Barrett was out protesting against abortion 2 weeks ago. Would you agree that she should recuse herself? I would since it is the ethics piece. Unfortunately for the country, the only way to sanction a SCOTUS justice is for the SCOTUS itself to do it.

@kritiper Yes, the question was about the SCOTUS. But the idea that what someone says should (or more accurately, is portrayed as saying) should be their only allowable view on things ever applies to all persons and is patently absurd. To say you think they said something so that should be their view for all time is foolish. In fact, for them to say something and then later on change their views is not out of the realm of reality.

If we go with the idea that RvW was set precedence and could never be changed, then slavery should still be continuing. A marriage should be only between one man and one woman. What other changes have been made that were “set precedence”?

@HP your statement shows you are very limiting, have an extremely set of views that you believe everyone should abide by and that you know absolutely nothing about me.

As for whipping out NY Post or Fox News as credible news sources, let’s look at others like CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, and all the rest of the foolish leftists outlets. They were credible when they said Donald Trump colluded with Russia for 3 years. We now know they out and out lied. They were credible when they said Donald Trump said Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists were very fine people. That was just an out and out lie from the start and they knew it. They lied when they said Nicholas Sandmann and his fellow high school students were racists and approached and were ridiculing a native American. Some of them got sued over that one and settled out of court. But they had to doctor video footage to come up with that. They were credible when they said Donald Trump told Zelenskyy 8 times he wanted him to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. That went out the window as soon as the transcript was released. But they still didn’t let up. They tried creating a whole narrative ascribing to Trump all the corrupt things Joe Biden bragged about. There really has not been one thing these leftist outlets have been honest about if they can find a way of castigating conservatives. Yet with all the lies, massive lies and blatant lies that they have put out, you continue to believe them to be reliable? Huh. What does that say about you?

@HP Thanks for your succinct response! Got it.

@seawulf575 once more, you lose. Following your reasoning, If anyone should be compelled to recuse themselves, it should be the 6( count em) supposedly devout Roman Catholic Justices who are assured of going to hell for sanctioning a woman’s right to choose. And you are dead wrong. I know enough about you to accuse you of being that prime example of the dinosaur problem. It’s a judgement that I am fully prepared to defend and demonstrate to anyone’s satisfaction (other than of course your own)

@HP RvW concerns a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. It is not a case about what religion they are. If this was a case concerning establishment of a state religion, your argument might hold water. But it isn’t. It is a case about whether abortion rules should reside in the federal government or in the state legislatures. You obviously can’t follow my reasoning.

As for your “dinosaur problem” I give it no credence at all. It is a made up thing for you to be dismissive of anyone that disagrees with you. That is your way of trying to control a conversation…to try ridiculing with made up things. It is fairly pitiful. And no, you could only demonstrate that to the satisfaction of people that think just like you. But if you all want to continue to think you know me while you ignore my views, that is up to you. I’ll continue to show how you fall flat in debate.

Unfortunately your views ARE you and they are just to absurd to ignore or allow you to pass them off as sensible. Let us begin with the preposterous idea that Roe v Wade has nothing to do with religion. Give me and yourself a break. This has nothing to do with the woman’s religion. This is about the issue of recusal and the fact that 6 of the nine judges deciding the fate of women are devotees of a cult that preaches tolerance of abortion the certain damnation of their immortal souls. Now being our expert on bias, convince us this is not on its face a truly staggering conflict of interest. And again you are just plain wrong. No one can ignore your views. You are the equvalent of those headlines from the NY Post and Fox. As for following your reasoning, there is little to follow. It’s the dinosaur problem in spades. You parade your dinosaur stories ad nauseum here, then posit the mainstream and we here as biased for pointing out the incongruities. Of course the mainstream media is biased. As with those 6 justices who will rule on Roe, and cannot admit they will burn eternally if they permit woment control of their own bodies, no COMPETENT journalist is going to tolerate Ian argument that Trump is fit for office. You’re right. The mainstream media has a bias against the ridiculous and the illogical. And if you believe I fall flat in debating you, my friend, that little version of reality is a straight up dinosaur problem and it doesn’t matter who made it up.

@HP what is the SCOTUS actually ruling on? Do you even know? Do you actually have a clue as to what RvW or CvPP were all about? Based on your rants, I will say no. And your views ARE you. And they are clueless. You have avoided the fact presented that the media you support has been THE driving force of lies in the news for decades. It hasn’t been Fox or the NY Post that are doing all the damage nor even the most. What they ARE doing is exposing the lies and corruption on the left, and to you that is just plain lying. You can’t accept the truth. You don’t understand the issues and you can only make personal attacks that lack in logic and backing with citations.
You can’t even get the number of justices right. There are NINE justices, not six. And if you go back in history, the leftist justices have ruled in favor of conservative ideas and conservative justices have ruled in favor of leftist ideas. Because they often debate things, pointing out legal issues and considerations that might make sense to one of them. But you neither know that nor really care. You are stretching for some reason to negate the SCOTUS. You don’t understand what the issue is with RvW at all. It isn’t abortion. It is where the decision should rest for what the law says. It isn’t a federal issue. It avoids actually establishing when life starts. And what you REALLY don’t know (and what many of your fellow left-wing jellies don’t know) is that this idea of overturning set precedence is patently wrong. Set Precedence was overturned by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v Casey which pretty much negated Roe v Wade. What? Didn’t think of that? What a surprise. But what RvW and PPvC did do is try to extend abortion into a federal issue which it really isn’t. It is a state issue.

Blah-blah—blah—blah—blah !

Women right’s should include their body.

@seawulf575 please read my last paragraph once again

Blah blah blah, abortion should include the death of the man who caused the pregnancy. That would solve a great many issues, like rape, incest, and abortion for simple use as birth control.