House Democrats Vote To Undermine USSC, Violate Separation of Powers

[RetiredGySgt]

Now argue with the legal definition of precedent.

Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.

Now cite where it can not be overturned.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Now argue with the legal definition of precedent.

Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.

So this is what they said they would follow in judging any cases in the future.

I'll explain it in layman's terms for you if you can't understand this.

Now cite where it can not be overturned.

It's literally in the definition of the legal term they used.

 

[kyzr]

The Supreme Court doesn't set precedent. The Supreme Court follows legal precedent.
And two republican senators say I'm correct and they were lied to.

Wrong. The USSC doesn't have to follow precedent, they look at every case based on the legal merits and Constitutionality.
If the democrats want unlimited abortions they need to pass LAWS saying such.
Why didn't democrats pass Federal abortion laws?

Those two republican senators can say they were lied to, but they weren't.
No justice nominee would ever commit to how they would vote on any case before the USSC.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.


I
This is what precedent is. For deciding future cases involving similar facts or similar legal issues.


Abortion is the same issue guys.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Wrong. The USSC doesn't have to follow precedent, they look at every case based on the legal merits and Constitutionality.
If the democrats want unlimited abortions they need to pass LAWS saying such.
Why didn't democrats pass Federal abortion laws?

Those two republican senators can say they were lied to, but they weren't.
No justice nominee would ever commit to how they would vote on any case before the USSC.

Wrong I have you the definition of the terms used by the Trump appointees.



Either they lied or didn't know the term they used. Which is it?

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Wrong. The USSC doesn't have to follow precedent, they look at every case based on the legal merits and Constitutionality.
If the democrats want unlimited abortions they need to pass LAWS saying such.
Why didn't democrats pass Federal abortion laws?

Those two republican senators can say they were lied to, but they weren't.
No justice nominee would ever commit to how they would vote on any case before the USSC.

Wrong the Supreme Court can't just make laws from the bench. Precedent is set for fifty years and they both said it was settled precedents. They lied.

 

[22lcidw]

a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.


I
This is what precedent is. For deciding future cases involving similar facts or similar legal issues.


Abortion is the same issue guys.

Abortion is behavioral. We have Hunter Biden's because of it.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Now if abortion was made illegal fifty year ago on the Supreme Court then that would be precedents against legal abortion.

You gotta understand the basic legal term they used in saying it was precedent.

 

[kyzr]

Wrong I have you the definition of the terms used by the Trump appointees.
Either they lied or didn't know the term they used. Which is it?

USSC nominees always leave wiggle room and NEVER commit to how they would vote when on the USSC.
If you, or anyone else doesn't understand "legal speak" that's understandable. Look at Alito's response

Justice Samuel Alito, who penned the majority’s opinion overturning Roe, declined to say in his 2006 hearing that Roe was “settled law,” calling it an “important precedent” that is “protected,” but refusing to classify it as something that “can’t be re-examined.”

You can't show where any justice said that they would never vote to overturn R v W.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

USSC nominees always leave wiggle room and NEVER commit to how they would vote when on the USSC.
If you, or anyone else doesn't understand "legal speak" that's understandable. Look at Alito's response

Justice Samuel Alito, who penned the majority’s opinion overturning Roe, declined to say in his 2006 hearing that Roe was “settled law,” calling it an “important precedent” that is “protected,” but refusing to classify it as something that “can’t be re-examined.”

You can't show where any justice said that they would never vote to overturn R v W.

So you don'tie and say it is precedent when you plan on overturning the rulings.

Thats literally lying under oath.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL he is claiming NO court can overturn precedent ignoring over 240 years of history,

 

[kyzr]

Wrong the Supreme Court can't just make laws from the bench. Precedent is set for fifty years and they both said it was settled precedents. They lied.

The USSC didn't "make law".
The USSC said that abortion isn't a Federal responsibility under the US Constitution, and as such is the responsibility of the States.
Precedents can be overturned by the USSC, they do that all the time.

 

[pknopp]

LOL he is claiming NO court can overturn precedent ignoring over 240 years of history,

I never claimed that but I still believe the justices words were intended to mislead.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

LOL he is claiming NO court can overturn precedent ignoring over 240 years of history,

no what I said is they lied under oath. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

They said that Roe vs wade was precedent.

a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.

 

[kyzr]

So you don'tie and say it is precedent when you plan on overturning the rulings.
Thats literally lying under oath.

Saying something is precedent doesn't mean that you can't vote to overturn it.
No nominee would ever commit to how they would vote on any future case.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Saying something is precedent doesn't mean that you can't vote to overturn it.
No nominee would ever commit to how they would vote on any future case.

And they say I will not comment on cases that I might rule on in the future.

They say that on the time.

They don't lie and say it is precedent.

 

[kyzr]

They said that Roe vs wade was precedent.

a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.

The USSC overturned "precedent" five times. The USSC is NOT bound by precedent.

Five times the Supreme Court reversed a precedent

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion this week that would overturn the landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade has raised fresh questions about when, if ever, a court ruling can safely be considere…

thehill.com

"One bedrock of American law is the doctrine of stare decisis, the principle that courts are generally bound to abide by past rulings. Yet the Supreme Court has also left itself wiggle room, repeatedly noting that adherence to precedent is not an “inexorable command.”

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Many ti.es Supreme Court nominees say I will not comment t on things that I might rule on in the future.

They don't lie and say it is precedent.

 

[kyzr]

And they say I will not comment on cases that I might rule on in the future.
They say that on the time.
They don't lie and say it is precedent.

Saying something is "precedent" or a "super precedent" or "settled law" doesn't mean that you will never vote to overturn it.

I can see where you believe those answers to be misleading, and that saying "I will not comment on cases that I might rule on in the future." would have been a clearer/better response.