The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

The fact that neither of you see a problem with potential SCOTUS justices lying to get appointed to a lifetime position on the bench tells me everything I need to know. Not wasting my time anymore.

The Democrat's most recent nominee said she can't even define what a woman is. That's not lying? You don't have to be a biologist to define that.

Also, they all said Roe vs. Wade is precedent. None of them ever said it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/n...1-05ea5fbcb05a

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

Also, while precedent is important, it's not an “inexorable command.” And yes, while I understand the meaning based on the context in which it was used I had to look up the exact definition. Precedents can and have been overturned before.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...d-a-precedent/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...mark-decisions

https://theconversation.com/the-supr...egation-168052

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The Democrat's most recent nominee said she can't even define what a woman is. That's not lying? You don't have to be a biologist to define that.

Also, they all said Roe vs. Wade is precedent. None of them ever said it wouldn't or couldn't be overturned.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/n...1-05ea5fbcb05a

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10961...ation-hearings

Also, while precedent is important, it's not an “inexorable command.” And yes, while I understand the meaning based on the context in which it was used I had to look up the exact definition. Precedents can and have been overturned before.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...d-a-precedent/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...mark-decisions

https://theconversation.com/the-supr...egation-168052

They said it's established Law and no need to be revisited.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

They said it's established Law and no need to be revisited.

Do you have quotes/sources for this, where they said this specifically said this during their confirmation hearings?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Do you have quotes/sources for this, where they said this specifically said this during their confirmation hearings?

Look it up.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Do you have quotes/sources for this, where they said this specifically said this during their confirmation hearings?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=84470384

"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. And the book explains that," Gorsuch replied.
"That's the law of the land, I accept the law of the land, senator. Yes," Gorsuch replied.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=84470384

"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. And the book explains that," Gorsuch replied.
"That's the law of the land, I accept the law of the land, senator. Yes," Gorsuch replied.

Accepting the law of the land that was the law at that specific time is not the same thing as saying the law could never be changed in the future.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Accepting the law of the land that was the law at that specific time is not the same thing as saying the law could never be changed in the future.

LOL, wow. Serious trump right there!

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, wow.

Laugh all you want to. Doesn't change the point. He never said he would never make any future ruling that would overturn Roe vs. Wade.