Should Amy Barrot and Brett Kavanaugh be punished fot lying?

This is the lie. ACB said it was precedent and that it was still hotly debated as evidenced by her receiving questions about it during her confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh also said it was precedent. Roe/Casey were precedent. Those are factual statements. You're accusing others of what you're doing.

Also, it's Barrett and Kavanaugh..

 

2024 is a long way off. I think the midterms this year will have a direct effect on the 2024 elections. Before I get into 2024, I want the midterms in the books.

 

What, you think republicans are the answer to inflation, shortages? The world is having the same problem, it's due to the pandemic.

But, naturally, republicans are going to spin it for what it's worth to get back in power, then the public is going to be remined of the nightmare their party is and kick them out in 2024.

 

Says the guy that said Trump would never win in 2016.

 

This is a big win for DEMOCRACY. What is wrong with that? Aren't dems in favor of DEMOCRACY or not? Now the PEOPLE can decide. Why is that such a problem?

 

So what?
7 Billion people were wrong about 2016 (and Trump pulled the biggest upset in History).
I WAS RIGHT About 2020...
The most RECENT Election...
And, speaking GENERALLY :
I (personally) would rather be a person who was wrong 6 years ago (about an election that 99% of Planet Earth was wrong about) than the kind of person who would feel the need to reach back halfway into the last decade for some Pathetic Ancient Flamebait Material (that happened years before they even joined the forum)...
But hey, that is just me.
Opinions differ.
To each their own.
Carry on...

 

What you’re missing is Republicans, the party out of power in general don’t have to have an answer. They don’t have to stand for anything, say anything. All they must be is on the ballot as the alternative to the party in power. If your life is miserable today, you’re worst off today than you were before, you only choices are the party in power or the party out of power. They’ll take a chance on the party out of power.


Remember, regardless of how good or bad things are today, Republicans are going to vote for Republicans, Democrats for Democrats. It’s the letter behind the name that matters to those folks. Not the candidates, the situation, just the letter behind a name. Now swing voters, independents are different. They usually follow their pocketbooks. If they pocketbook is getting fatter, they’ll vote for the party in power. If their pocketbook is getting thinner, they’ll vote for the party out of power. Which party is irrelevant, they’re no political junkies like those on this site? They rarely pay much if any attention to politics until an election nears. But they do pay attention to rising gas prices, rising food costs, inflation in general. If they’re better off today, it’s the party in power, worse off, the party out of power. Rather simple really. Remember these swing voters aren’t affiliated or do they identify with either major party. They’re less to non-partisan, most probably don’t know the name of their congressman or who their senators are. They do know who’s president. So, we’ll see. I’d wager swing voters; independents vote Republican this midterm.

 

Party preferences in congressional elections are largely a matter of which party the president belongs to, and are determined largely by factors over which a president has minimal control.

 

A nominee with a partisan agenda who is hellbent upon legislating from the bench can lie, under oath, and say anything that gets him onto the court, and then can lie again and say, "So, I changed my mind."

Collins: Abortion ruling ‘inconsistent’ with what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh told me
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Friday said conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch misled her
​

 

Hahaha! Tell it to the judge.

 

Your claim that they lied, is a lie. Should you be punished?

 

You falsely assert that these two Justices lied and then ask if they "should be punished for it." You also claim that you just now decided that the Court should be packed, yet, a year and a half you posted:

When folks say "pack the court" they are generally referring to FDR's plan to ADD Justices and appoint folks to fill the new seats, shifting ideological balance. Looking through your statement I can't determine if that is what you are referring to, or merely filling natural vacancies with folks that align with your judicial philosophy, which is the ordinary practice.

There is nothing controversial about this second approach and both sides commonly engage in it. Its adding seats to the Judiciary to create appointments that's highly controversial.

In which sense are you using the phrase "pack the courts"? Adding seats, or simply filling vacancies as they arise with folks that align with the President's philosophy?

 

What the authoritarians will have a difficult time suppressing is the rise in medical abortions.

The politicians' and bureaucrats' invasive intrusion into privacy will have to extend to personal mail and internet communications.

 

You are right.
The problem was that nobody seemed to know what questions to ask these judges, after they heard it was 'settled law'. That response begs for some follow up questions that anyone sitting on a judiciary committee knows to ask. The fact that they sat back on their laurels after that answer, means that they did not really want to know more. This was not about Barret and Kavanaugh lying to the committee. It was about the committee settling for 'settled' because it was convenient and politically expedient to do so.

I knew what was happening when I heard that phrase coming out of the mouths of Trump appointee judges. I knew it as a dodge to provide cover for swing votes on the committee to swing their way. I don't really believe that I am smarter than these committee members were.

 

I think Professor Dershowitz made a good point tonight-he was wondering why the USSC felt a need to strike down Roe when it could've merely held that the 15 week limit-which seems to be popular in many states and in much of Europe, was not prevented by Roe.

 

Very true, which is usually the economy. Midterms are nothing more than a referendum on the president, the party in power.

 

It's the mushy middle we have to worry about.

 

No, this comes to a misunderstanding of how the judges see themselves, which was elaborated quite nicely by Alito. According to him, the Supreme Court must not factor social pressures/desires in the court's ruling system, it can only interpret the constitution and the law and make the decision from there.

But from that line of reasoning, the court should abandon the idea of 'de jure statis' since that doesn't exist any time a case reaches its docket(which is nominally done when the lower courts cannot come to a consensus.). So in perfect irony, it is actually the lower courts you should blame for the case ever reaching the SCOTUS to begin with.

When Judges go to a confirmation hearing, they do not want to taint future cases(see: Barrett's reasoning). Indeed, what Ms. Collins doesn't understand is that the judges don't owe her or any senator anything but lip service to get confirmed, as to do otherwise would be inviolable to their jobs.

This wouldn't however be a problem if not for a new happening in our politics, one that Sasse(R-Nebraska) warned about, and one I've often talked about: The political-judicial state(he would use the term super legislature, either one applies here.), This is actually not a new problem. Thomas Jefferson was an opponent of the Supreme Court for the same reason. In a country that rebelled against England and Great Britain, what the hell are we doing with a 'supreme' anything? For it to choose winners and losers was inevitable by the nature of its body.

This ruling(and its counterpart, Hobby Lobby) gives us the momentum where both sides now feel the same necessity: Abolish the Supreme Court. The only kind of courts that should exist are federal and district courts. Especially since the conservative argument is that it should be left to the States. I agree, and there's no purer way of doing that then abolishing the SCOTUS.

A mistaken creation lamented by one of the Founders, evolving into the epic disaster that it is today.

 

The Mississippi law was a reasonable one. Under that law 94-95% of abortions would still be legal.

If I'm on the court I give this opinion. Because of scientific advancement since 1973 we know that a fetus is viable before the third trimester. So redraw the time a state has a compelling interest in the life of a fetus at 15 weeks vs 24 as as stated in Roe.

That upholds the Mississippi statute.
That provides a guide for state abortion laws. 15th week.
Abortion remains legal for the most part just not later ones in some states.

There will be other cases. I'm sure somebody will challenge the Texas heart beat law at 6 weeks. Even the Texas law allows half of abortions.

 

They hate democracy.

 

Because the real issue isn't about weeks. It is about the humanity of a fetus. What one side sees as the excision of tissue, others see as homicide.

 

Because abortion is not covered in the Constitution. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution.....period. They are not to get involved in social engineering because they are not elected officials and where would it end?

Giving the issue back to the states is the correct decision. Now the PEOPLE can decide as it should be.

 

I doubt it. I don't vote and I suspect you prefer mail in voting.

 

I am sure folks will remember going to the grocery store and filling up with gas before they will remember some silly leftist belief. Folks ALWAYS will vote on what affects them in the immediate. Inflation is real and affects people everyday.

So yes, see you at the polls.

 

Very true. The mushy middle better known as swing voters or independents decide elections.