Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Right now you need 2/3 vote in both Houses. That won't happen under current conditions.

As for claiming they changed their minds, one could present their history of saying they wanted to overturn Roe. I don't think the Senate investigated seriously the last 3 justices for their anti-Roe views. The Democrats followed tradition of voting to install the SCOTUS regardless of who appointed them. Yes they balked at Bork, and maybe there were others I'm forgetting. It's moot now unless impeachment becomes a serious option.
Click to expand...

Bork is the one that people remember, but others have failed to get the nod over the centuries for various reasons. Bork is the most recent one to get outright rejected however, as they didn't vote on Garland and Meirs withdrew her nomination.
 
Segnosaur said:
I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.
 
Parsman said:
In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.
Click to expand...
This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.
 
shuttlt said:
This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.
Click to expand...

I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.
 
wareyin said:
I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.
Click to expand...
No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.
 
Segnosaur said:
I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.
Click to expand...

How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.
 
Ziggurat said:
How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.
Click to expand...

I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.
 
Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.
Click to expand...

And this is just one reason why all hormonal contraception will eventually be in the cross-sights:
https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/using-oral-birth-control-pills-ec/

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/image?imageKey=PI%2F74604
 
shuttlt said:
No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.
 
psionl0 said:
I hear talk of impeaching the SC justices for "lying" about their intentions over Roe vs Wade when questioned.

As a matter of curiosity, were any of them asked directly if they would overturn Roe vs Wade if a case came before them?
Click to expand...

Segnosaur said:
I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.
 
wareyin said:
Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.
Click to expand...
Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.
 
crescent said:
I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.
Click to expand...

The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer.

Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.
 
slyjoe said:
And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.
Click to expand...

Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.
Click to expand...

Where do you live (as in what state, I don't want your home address)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom