Originally published at: Supercut of radical activist MAGA judges lying about Roe v. Wade position in front of Congress | Boing Boing
…
9 Likes
15 Likes
13 Likes
When you put them all together like that, it really shows how weaselly they all are. Saying it’s an important precedent, the law of the land, etc, leaves silent any clear answer to the question “would you change it?”.
16 Likes
Well sure, they “respected” that precedent, but it turned out that the legal precedent they really respected was “women aren’t human beings with rights, but instead possessions of men.”
I mean, that is explicitly what they’re doing by referencing Matthew Hale in the ruling:
22 Likes
15 Likes
Not deeply rooted my ass.
The year was 1748, the place was Philadelphia, and the book was The Instructor , a popular British manual for everything from arithmetic to letter-writing to caring for horses’ hooves. Benjamin Franklin had set himself to adapting it for the American colonies.
16 Likes
Of course Ben F was pro-choice; he was one of the only really decently moral founding fathers…
11 Likes
11 Likes
Yes, they’re very pointedly not lying. If asked directly, they would decline to answer. The nomination hearings were all theater in this regard.
Honestly this kind of video makes the pro-choice side look like the fools: 1. for calling this lying, when it’s not; 2. for trusting the process when it is obvious that Republicans would only ever nominate anti-Roe judges.
3 Likes
Which is a lie of omission.
So, yes, they were lying.
In my mind, lying to Congress during confirmation hearings should be grounds for immediate dismissal & prosecution… in addition, all judgements they rendered should be voided.
That’s just my $0.02, though.
You mean the Democrats who refused to call them on their bullshit during the hearing?
Sure it does.
Not all pro-choicers are members of Congress, though.
Those are lies of omission.
LIES.
You Know Who made no bones about only nominating people to the SCOTUS who would overturn Roe, so it should surprise no one that he did exactly that.
‘Trusting the process’ is irrelevant under those circumstances.
The Democrats in Congress [or anyone else] who still think the FDC negotiates in good faith are fools; hell, it’s been obvious for 40 years the FDC only cares about gaining and retaining power.
12 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it standard practice for all prospective judges not declare their positions during confirmation hearings regarding cases they may preside over if confirmed? Here’s a link to Sotomayor giving similar non-answers:
No prospective supreme court judge will give a straight answer as to their opinion on abortions during confirmation hearings. This isn’t much of an issue though, since we always already know what their position is based on who nominated them. The nominees give non-answers to questions they don’t want to answer. I guess you consider those lies? To me it’s obvious what ACB means when she says Roe v. Wade is an important precedent and the law of the land. I believe it was obvious to everyone at her hearings. A lie by omission would imply there’s someone being deceived by the lie, right?
What’s the FDC?
Sounds like some DARVO to me.
9 Likes
Can someone please leak a draft of the dissenting opinions because they will be scathing.
2 Likes
Please check the definition of “settled law.” They all responded to direct questions about whether they intended to overturn Roe with variations of the response that it is “settled law.” In context, that’s a lie. They are overturning it, and they always meant to.
Edit: spelling (thanks @ClutchLinkey!)
12 Likes
Of course it is, but this isn’t a case of ‘both siderism’, unless firecrackers & hand grenades are equivalent.
Not necessarily.
There have been surprises, as we both know.
Well, that is a mealy-mouthed non-answer, so what exactly did she mean?
And that would be, what, exactly?
I, for one, didn’t watch the hearings, so what did I miss?
It is a deliberate witholding of information on the part of the deceiver.
There is no implication of someone being deceived; that is the intention.
It is what used to be called the GOP.
Fascist Death Cult is the proper name for it now.
9 Likes
They may not be lying but they sure are being disingenuous as fuck.
5 Likes
I know they’re over tiring me, for sure.
But to the main post (not aimed at you, obvs) - Yes, the confirmation process is largely performative. Isn’t it so telling, then, that McConnell and his death cult weren’t even willing to go through the motions the last year of Obama’s presidency? Even for a justice candidate they had put forth? FFS. Any talk of “both sides” at this point is so exhausting and obviously disingenuous.
7 Likes
