SCOTUS

[jhu72]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

You understand those people (Schumer and Collins etc) are politicians? You are as well? Because the standard to accuse someone of lying shouldn’t be trying to appeal to others like a politician, you hopefully would be more precise. But alas.

And I tend to ignore others here as well. The level of honest dialogue isn’t worth one’s time, unless it’s fun which it is for me. Joe Mauer has stated this best by remarking how absolutely no one on the lefts echo chamber here has once paused to reflect ‘hey maybe you’re correct and I’m wrong’. Very good observation tbh.

you and joe, two pots ..

[ggait]

None of the GOP SCOTUS justices "lied" about overturning Roe. Come on -- all of these folks are whip smart lawyers who were extremely well prepared for their hearings.

They all used the usual expected coded language in the pointless Kabuki theater of their confirmation hearings. Not one word of what they said was a surprise. And what they would do on Roe was completely obvious to anyone listening and who understands how the Kabuki theater works. Including Collins and Murkowski.

So those two now can implausibly deny that they are shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on in the casino. They obviously were just doing what they needed to do to hang onto their seats. No surprises at all. Here's how it works:

1. No judge can ever answer in advance how they would rule in a particular case. So none of them said if they'd overrule RvW.

2. They all say they respect SCOTUS precedents and SCOTUS settled law. Duh. Every judge would say the same thing. Every sitting SCOTUS said basically the same thing. You might as well ask them if water is wet. The Trump three were all circuit appeals judges at the time of their confirmation. As such, in their then current jobs they, of course, follow SCOTUS precedents. Duh.

3. SCOTUS, however, is the court that MAKES the precedents. They don't FOLLOW the precedents. Duh. As such, SCOTUS is the place where the concept of stare decisis is the weakest. Duh.

4. Cases which address settled precedents generally only get taken up by SCOTUS in order to CHANGE the precedents. Duh. FYI, SCOTUS gets to pick and choose which cases it hears. If they elect to take up an abortion case, it isn't because they intend to rule "All good. We decided that years ago. No changes. But thanks for checking back in with us just to make sure." The only reason to take a precedent case is to (i) modify it, (ii) address a specific question not completely covered by the precedent, or (iii) overturn the precedent.

5. A complete overturn doesn't happen often, but SCOTUS is allowed to do that. Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu were all SCOTUS precedents entitled to stare decisis respect. Until they weren't.

I would say that Barrett's comments on the point were the most honest and transparent. She talked about the concept of SCOTUS "super-precedents." Meaning cases soooooo foundational, entrenched and respected that, basically, they can never be over-ruled. No one would ever seriously suggest that they should be overruled.

She cited cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Ed as super-precedents. Same thing that CJ Roberts said decades ago when asked by Sen. Arlen Spector if Roe was a "super-duper" precedent. Barrett testified that she didn't think Roe was a super-precedent. Because it was still controversial after 50 years. Which means, duh obviously, that Roe is a precedent to be followed. Until SCOTUS decides that it isn't.

Shame on the politicians and the press for mis-representing the obvious.

Here's what stare decisis at SCOTUS really means. "We should follow all the precedents that I agree with. But not the ones that I really disagree with and that I can get five votes against." Again, no surprises.

[Farfromgeneva]

None of the GOP SCOTUS justices "lied" about overturning Roe. Come on -- all of these folks are whip smart lawyers who were extremely well prepared for their hearings.

They all used the usual expected coded language in the pointless Kabuki theater of their confirmation hearings. Not one word of what they said was a surprise. And what they would do on Roe was completely obvious to anyone listening and who understands how the Kabuki theater works. Including Collins and Murkowski.

So those two now can implausibly deny that they are shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on in the casino. They obviously were just doing what they needed to do to hang onto their seats. No surprises at all. Here's how it works:

1. No judge can ever answer in advance how they would rule in a particular case. So none of them said if they'd overrule RvW.

2. They all say they respect SCOTUS precedents and SCOTUS settled law. Duh. Every judge would say the same thing. Every sitting SCOTUS said basically the same thing. You might as well ask them if water is wet. The Trump three were all circuit appeals judges at the time of their confirmation. As such, in their then current jobs they, of course, follow SCOTUS precedents. Duh.

3. SCOTUS, however, is the court that MAKES the precedents. They don't FOLLOW the precedents. Duh. As such, SCOTUS is the place where the concept of stare decisis is the weakest. Duh.

4. Cases which address settled precedents generally only get taken up by SCOTUS in order to CHANGE the precedents. Duh. FYI, SCOTUS gets to pick and choose which cases it hears. If the elect to take up an abortion case, it isn't because they intend to rule "All good. We decided that years ago. No changes. But thanks for checking back in with us just to make sure." The only reason to take a precedent case is to (i) modify it, (ii) address a specific question not completely covered by the precedent, or (iii) overturn the precedent.

5. A complete overturn doesn't happen often, but SCOTUS is allowed to do that. Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu were all SCOTUS precedents entitled to stare decisis respect. Until they weren't.

I would say that Barrett's comments on the point were the most honest and transparent. She talked about the concept of SCOTUS "super-precedents." Meaning cases soooooo foundational, entrenched and respected that, basically, they can never be over-ruled. No one would ever seriously suggest that they should be overruled.

She cited cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Ed as super-precedents." Same thing that CJ Roberts said decades ago when asked by Sen. Arlen Spector if Roe was a "super-duper" precedent. Barrett testified that she didn't think Roe was a super-precedent. Which means, duh obviously, that Roe is a precedent to be followed. Until SCOTUS decides that it isn't.

Shame on the politicians and the press for mis-representing the obvious.

From 3 on is interesting because I hear this all the time that nothing can ever be overturned if there’s any prior to recent and while I understand the definition of Stare Ive never understood how that was so sacrosanct when s**t changes over time. I get stability but once a generation or two passes, let alone technology, migration, social norms change it seems specious to hold on like a squirrel to its sole nut for the winter to precedent as inviolable over say, 50yrs. This isn’t to support an overturn per se but how many people have bought into this never made sense to me. Not since I was a high school kid.

[jhu72]

The case for the supreme court leak coming from the right.

[ggait]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how- ... -happened/

Tom Goldstein's leak theory is, by far, the most convincing one I've seen.

Most importantly, he correctly points out that there were THREE different leaks from SCOTUS. Not just the one of the draft.

His theory is that the first one (to the WSJ) very likely came from the right. Which was the report on how the votes were turning out. That is a leak and just as bad a breach as leaks 2 and 3.

The second (the draft) and the third (where the votes were) were to Politico. Goldstein argues that 2 and 3 would have come from the left and would have been in retaliation to leak #1.

It is also important to look at the leak of the opinion through the lens of the fact that someone – almost certainly a conservative – had just before leaked the court’s tentative decision and the state of the voting to The Wall Street Journal. That leak was itself an extraordinary and unethical breach of confidences and certainly caused very deep concern inside the court.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[youthathletics]

It's a major election cycle around the corner.....of course there is a leak that would help one side. Next thing you know, they'll come up with some crazy thing like a dossier, all while telling us golden showers where taking place.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Maybe we'll finally get some closure on Hillary's emails or Benghazi or Hunter before the midterms.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's a major election cycle around the corner.....of course there is a leak that would help one side. Next thing you know, they'll come up with some crazy thing like a dossier, all while telling us golden showers where taking place.

[Peter Brown]

It's a major election cycle around the corner.....of course there is a leak that would help one side. Next thing you know, they'll come up with some crazy thing like a dossier, all while telling us golden showers where taking place.

I’m n case you aren’t aware, a Democratic group is calling for protests inside Catholic Churches this Sunday (doesn’t matter if children are in attendance), followed by marches on the homes of the six conservative justices next Wednesday.

Because they love abortions.

‘Party of norms’.

[jhu72]

CBS reporting that demand for abortion pills through the mail is growing. There was a 30x increase from Monday to Tuesday.

[youthathletics]

Is this also why baby formula is in such short supply...to the point where some children can not get access to unique formulas based on their health?

This is the 2nd administration in a row that has proven to be a complete EFF-UP.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Is this also why baby formula is in such short supply...to the point where some children can not get access to unique formulas based on their health?

This is the 2nd administration in a row that has proven to be a complete EFF-UP.

You’re lost. There’s no comparison of this administration to the rank incompetency of the 2016-2020 years. Trump will always be the worst.

[MDlaxfan76]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

And that repudiation is the basis for saying they lied, as they'd been clear that would not be consistent with their 'philosophy'. Total misrepresentation of what they would do, intended to obfuscate to deceive.

Collins and Murkowski were fooled by that lie.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

... many dozens ?

100's?

[jhu72]

So in a bid to out do the other anti-abortion Nazi states, Louisiana is advancing a bill that will criminalize abortion to the point that it will be classified a homicide. This is great! The over reach of the republiCON fascists will make defeating them at the polls easier. I can see the democratic ads now. I can't believe these people are this stupid. Even if someone in Louisiana comes to their senses and they decide not to try to pass this bill, the democrats already have video of the republiCON leaders of this effort saying "we can't make an exception for mothers"

[jhu72]

Is anyone on here applauding any threats, much less acts, of violence? If so, I haven't heard them.

I DO hear people applauding Justices who lied about what they would do once in their lifetime jobs and had a majority.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You use it often, incorrectly, and dishonestly.

“As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it. Instead, they often commented on the importance of precedent and constitutional guarantees to privacy.”

Absolutely No one said they’d vote to affirm Roe.

You do a good job, however, of identically imitating Pelosi and Schumer, so congrats?

and Collins and Murkowski.

Yes, in public they also made clear that they would honor longstanding precedents upon which people rely in direct reference to this situation. And that was a lie. Pure and simple, assuming they sign onto this opinion as written....and as reported they have done.

Yes, they avoided a flat out promise, under oath, that they would vote to uphold Roe 100%. So, expectations were for a modification, but not a wholesale repudiation of the precedents, including a repudiation of "privacy", upon which so many cases have been decided.

And that repudiation is the basis for saying they lied, as they'd been clear that would not be consistent with their 'philosophy'. Total misrepresentation of what they would do, intended to obfuscate to deceive.

Collins and Murkowski were fooled by that lie.

and yeah, we've caught you many dozens of times lying blatantly. Total misrepresentations of truth.

a fan is relentless in this regard...I tend to ignore you more.

... many dozens ?

100's?

... many 100's

[youthathletics]

Is this also why baby formula is in such short supply...to the point where some children can not get access to unique formulas based on their health?

This is the 2nd administration in a row that has proven to be a complete EFF-UP.

You’re lost. There’s no comparison of this administration to the rank incompetency of the 2016-2020 years. Trump will always be the worst.

Hittin' the Oban early I see. Have a great weekend!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Is this also why baby formula is in such short supply...to the point where some children can not get access to unique formulas based on their health?

This is the 2nd administration in a row that has proven to be a complete EFF-UP.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Is this also why baby formula is in such short supply...to the point where some children can not get access to unique formulas based on their health?

This is the 2nd administration in a row that has proven to be a complete EFF-UP.

You’re lost. There’s no comparison of this administration to the rank incompetency of the 2016-2020 years. Trump will always be the worst.

Hittin' the Oban early I see. Have a great weekend!

If only…

[MDlaxfan76]

None of the GOP SCOTUS justices "lied" about overturning Roe. Come on -- all of these folks are whip smart lawyers who were extremely well prepared for their hearings.

They all used the usual expected coded language in the pointless Kabuki theater of their confirmation hearings. Not one word of what they said was a surprise. And what they would do on Roe was completely obvious to anyone listening and who understands how the Kabuki theater works. Including Collins and Murkowski.

So those two now can implausibly deny that they are shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on in the casino. They obviously were just doing what they needed to do to hang onto their seats. No surprises at all. Here's how it works:

1. No judge can ever answer in advance how they would rule in a particular case. So none of them said if they'd overrule RvW.

2. They all say they respect SCOTUS precedents and SCOTUS settled law. Duh. Every judge would say the same thing. Every sitting SCOTUS said basically the same thing. You might as well ask them if water is wet. The Trump three were all circuit appeals judges at the time of their confirmation. As such, in their then current jobs they, of course, follow SCOTUS precedents. Duh.

3. SCOTUS, however, is the court that MAKES the precedents. They don't FOLLOW the precedents. Duh. As such, SCOTUS is the place where the concept of stare decisis is the weakest. Duh.

4. Cases which address settled precedents generally only get taken up by SCOTUS in order to CHANGE the precedents. Duh. FYI, SCOTUS gets to pick and choose which cases it hears. If they elect to take up an abortion case, it isn't because they intend to rule "All good. We decided that years ago. No changes. But thanks for checking back in with us just to make sure." The only reason to take a precedent case is to (i) modify it, (ii) address a specific question not completely covered by the precedent, or (iii) overturn the precedent.

5. A complete overturn doesn't happen often, but SCOTUS is allowed to do that. Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu were all SCOTUS precedents entitled to stare decisis respect. Until they weren't.

I would say that Barrett's comments on the point were the most honest and transparent. She talked about the concept of SCOTUS "super-precedents." Meaning cases soooooo foundational, entrenched and respected that, basically, they can never be over-ruled. No one would ever seriously suggest that they should be overruled.

She cited cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Ed as super-precedents. Same thing that CJ Roberts said decades ago when asked by Sen. Arlen Spector if Roe was a "super-duper" precedent. Barrett testified that she didn't think Roe was a super-precedent. Because it was still controversial after 50 years. Which means, duh obviously, that Roe is a precedent to be followed. Until SCOTUS decides that it isn't.

Shame on the politicians and the press for mis-representing the obvious.

Here's what stare decisis at SCOTUS really means. "We should follow all the precedents that I agree with. But not the ones that I really disagree with and that I can get five votes against." Again, no surprises.

I disagree, though on these topics I'd weigh your view highly. Not with your logic above, just the term "lied" or "lying". Note that my use of the term is not legalistic.

I think they were nevertheless clear that they would not simply respect precedent, they would follow stare decisis, which at least as I understand it for SCOTUS-level means narrow changes, modifications, etc built upon past precedent. Not that it's impossible to wholesale toss out prior precedent, as obviously has happened a very few times before, notably Brown overturning Plessy, but in general is very difficult to do and against their expressed judicial philosophy...has it EVER been done 5-4? Red Scott was overturned not by the Court but by the 14th A, right? Korematsu not really ever overturned, though noted? Brown was 9-0.

Lots of people assumed they were being dishonest, deceitful, not simply avoiding a direct response but actually trying to reassure those who wanted to "give them the benefit of the doubt" with what amounted to a "lie" while giving a wink and a nod to those who were hoping they'd at least enable more restrictions if not wholesale over turn of Roe.

Sure, not perjury...yes, too smart. But a lie nevertheless.

But yeah, shame on anyone who didn't realize what they were doing...

[ggait]

MD -- respectfully, it was obvious to everyone the whole time.

ALL of the Republican nominees could not have been more clear in there pre-SCOTUS lives that they would, of course, be overwhelmingly likely to over-rule RvW given the chance. Of course they would. They wouldn't get nominated if that were not the case.

Of course they don't say that in their hearings. No one does. FYI, Dem nominees don't say how they would rule in future cases either. Most people attribute that now standard dodge, by the way, to RBG.

But these people have all been lower court judges, law professors and high level DOJ officials. They all had speeches, articles, briefs and memos that were crystal clear. Their extensive paper trails do not lie.

No one paying attention (and using the widely availabel de-coder ring) possibly have been convinced by the coded kabuki speeches about stare decisis. That is just "dicta" and means nothing. Any reporter who reported those statements to you as meaningful wasn't doing his job.

Precedents are always respected as precedents. Duh. But only until five SCOTUS votes say they are not precedents any longer. Duh. Only so-called "super-precedents" are not over-ruleable. Some conservatives (e.g. Michael Luttig) argue that Roe has, in fact, attained super-precedent status. But none of the current conservative on SCOTUS has ever said that. Never. Not even once. But the paper trail is clear.

To prove my point, here's Neal Katyal (former solicitor general) calling out the emptiness of the stare decisis discussions and proving that Kav's intentions on RvW were easily discernable and hiding in plain sight:

Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal
S.Feinstein's abortion qs not strong. J.Kav answers easily by saying Casey&Roe precedent. She should be asking re his Garza decn,where J.Kav took very narrow view of abortion precedents, and his DC Circuit colleagues disagreed. Again, that's what S Ct lit is about--the hard cases
8:31 AM · Sep 5, 2018·Twitter Web Client

It is a big step to overrule Roe and say it was horribly wrongly decided from the outset. No way is Roe Plessy or Korematsu. But literally not one person should be surprised that it will happen on June 30.