What Justices said to the U.S. Senate when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

[Supposn]

What Justices said to the U.S. Senate when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from the link, What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe to Senate Panel – NBC New York :

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018:
It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember," Kavanaugh said.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
With President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?
Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”

 

[Mac1958]

They were just kidding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In other words they did NOT say they would not rule to remove the precedent. Thanks for the info,

 

[22lcidw]

They were just kidding.

When do we start on the politicians? For if they were much more truthful and take accountability, we would not be in this position today.

 

[cnm]

In other words they did NOT say they would not rule to remove the precedent. Thanks for the info,

Lawyers are allowed to mislead, aren't they?

 

[j-mac]

In other words they did NOT say they would not rule to remove the precedent. Thanks for the info,

That’s exactly how I read them..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lawyers are allowed to mislead, aren't they?

What is misleading? They said it was established Precedent which it is right up until it overturned.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Let the Senate investigate and if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are found guilty of perjury then Impeach, Remove and Convict while nullifying their vote…

Do you have evidence on how Roberts voted because last I read it was unknown…

 

[easyt65]

My favorite is Jackson,who said she had no Dea what a 'woman' is despite being nominated because she is one.

 

[TNHarley]

Where are the lies, though?

 

[Flash]

I remember those two dumbass Moon Bat bitches that The Worthless Negro nominated for the Supreme Court lying their asses off during their confirmation. Just like that idiot affirmative action Negro bitch that Joe Potatohead appointed.

 

[Supposn]

What is misleading? They said it was established Precedent which it is right up until it overturned.

RetiredGySgt, THEY WERE SWORN IN AND TESTIFIED WITHIN U.S. SENATE HEARINGS in regard to their nominations.
THEY DID NOT THEN STATE (as you posted), "It. (i.e. Roe verses Wade) was (an) established precedent which it is right up until it overturned".
THEY DID NOT even imply that a woman choosing to have her pregnancy aborted was not being denied a human right. Is there any human right that's not additionally the right of every USA citizen?

Those particular justices quoted within this thread's first post in other words similarly in effect swore, as Chief Justice Roberts when a nominee swore, “It’s (i.e. Roe Vs. Wade is) settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Lawyers are allowed to mislead, aren't they?

CNM, in the USA it's illegal for anyone legally sworn in a court or government hearing to deliberately testify falsely. Lawyers in performance of their professional duties are specifically subject to sanctions and/or disbarment if they deliberately testify falsely. Those Supreme Court justices when nominees were answering questions with regard to their considered legal opinions.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What Justices said to the U.S. Senate when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from the link, What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe to Senate Panel – NBC New York :

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018:
It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember," Kavanaugh said.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
With President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?
Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”

Now what did the leftist say about the second amendment?

 

[Kondor3]

What Justices said to the U.S. Senate when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from the link, What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe to Senate Panel – NBC New York :

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018:
It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember," Kavanaugh said.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
With President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?
Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”

Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Supreme Court judges should never be chosen for their personal political or religious or social views.

Supreme Court judges should be chosen based upon their intellectual ability and Constitutional knowledge and their loyalty to the Rule of Law and the Republic.

They should not have been questioned about their position on Abortion or Roe v Wade in the first place.

Those (now) Justices did nothing wrong.

Proving that they lied - rather than that they simply reconsidered in the light of new presentations - will be quite impossible.

Give it up... you can't change anything with this anyway.

 

[StevenC]

Did they state they would not overturn roe? Unless they di they did not lie.

 

[g5000]

What Justices said to the U.S. Senate when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.

Excerpted from the link, What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe to Senate Panel – NBC New York :

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018:
It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”
“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember," Kavanaugh said.
Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services.
Kavanaugh went on to say that he understood the significance of the issue. “I always try and I do hear of the real world effects of that decision, as I try to do, of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 2017:
With President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nomination, it was Sen. Charles Grassley. R-Iowa, who asked point-blank: “Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?
Gorsuch replied: “I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

JOHN ROBERTS, 2005
The late Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked of the now-chief justice, who was a federal appeals court judge when nominated: “In your confirmation hearing for circuit court, your testimony read to this effect, and it has been widely quoted: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
Roberts replied: “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes.”

Alito is the only author's name on the leaked opinion. Do not make any assumptions about who will join him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt, THEY WERE SWORN IN AND TESTIFIED WITHIN U.S. SENATE HEARINGS in regard to their nominations.
THEY DID NOT THEN STATE (as you posted), "It. (i.e. Roe verses Wade) was (an) established precedent which it is right up until it overturned".
THEY DID NOT even imply that a woman choosing to have her pregnancy aborted was not being denied a human right. Is there any human right that's not additionally the right of every USA citizen?

Those particular justices quoted within this thread's first post in other words similarly in effect swore, as Chief Justice Roberts when a nominee swore, “It’s (i.e. Roe Vs. Wade is) settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the Court, yes”.

Respectfully, Supposn

And that is how they viewed it. Until they found compelling legal grounds to overturn the Precedent. NO one lied, no one mislead they stated it was Precedent and that's what it is until compelling legal reasons make it not.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The Supreme Court is supposed to be above this. At least I thought they were supposed to be.

They’re nothing more than politicians, just like in the other two branches of government.

They will lie. They will give vague answers. Like any other politician, they will smile and say whatever they need to say to get the job. Unlike any other politician, we can’t vote them out when they go back on what they say.

 

[Supposn]

And that is how they viewed it. Until they found compelling legal grounds to overturn the Precedent. NO one lied, no one mislead they stated it was Precedent and that's what it is until compelling legal reasons make it not.

RetiredGySgt, U.S. Senators may and do ask all kinds of questions. Nominees to the court may and many do refuse to respond by refusing to reveal their opinions with regard to a question that may become an issue before them if they become judges. In all cases of voting to reject or confirm a nominee, senators may and should rely upon what they believe to have learned or perceive in regard to the nominee's past performances.

But these supreme court justices DID RESPOND to such questions when they were nominees; they DID RESPOND with words that were in effect similar to what Chief justice stated when he was a nominee.

Compelling legal grounds to overturn the Precedent?
If they cannot cite the compelling legal grounds, or facts or reasons that was not known to them when they were nominees but are now their logical reason for refuting their past sworn testimony to at U.S. Senate hearings, then its logical to conclude they testified falsely to the senate or what you describe as their “compelling legal grounds” are shams.
Respectfully, Supposn