If you had bothered to read the cited article you would have read this: Most nominees have a judicial history that is easily accessed and evaluated to determine where the nominee stands on legal issues. Do you really buy the bs that we need hearings to make those determinations? How naive can you be?
Wattaya mean it's illegal for me to rob that bank? That was only settled law last year. I really NEED a Mercedes Benz this year ( My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends). NONE of these guys would have gotten the position if they'd have said they were going to do this, or even hinted they might. "Are you in a cult that eats children?" Is not the kind of question that a prospective governess should look upon as part of a "dog and pony show"
Agreed. None of these martinets should have even been considered for the posts, but hearings under oath should have SOME effect. (and perjury should have some consequences.)
Gaslighting. Of course they lied. They did it on National tv and we all saw it, clear as day. You remind me of the Gahan Wilson cartoon where a guy is being shown killing someone on television. Hundreds of people are recoiling in shock as the murderer is pumping bullets into his victim and blood is fountaining everywhere. In the image a little arrow labeled "alleged assassin" has been imposed on the screen
It was the methods your party chose and are still choosing that is at issue. And, of course, the last of those, social justice is a vaguely meaningless term that smacks far more of the idea of vengeance than of justice.
"smacks of vengeance? why would anyone need vengeance ? i an sorry you feelz that way but you know what conservatives say about "feelings." "i can't prove there was election fraud, but i have a gut feeling." couy griffin (new mexico commissioner (r_)on refusal to certify election)
"I consider Roe v Wade to be settled law" Then overturning it. HOW can you say that is NOT a lie?. Again, gaslighting, white is black and day in night. Anything is correct as long as it supports your hidebound religious belief from before the 1st century.
Ok, there's no such thing as settled law. Now, show us where Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barret said, under oath, "I will never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade". Without that, you ain't got nothin'.
So the term "settled law" AND the legal principle of stare decisis are basically meaningless. We can't rely upon law to be the same from day to day.
There's no such thing as "settled law" in our system of government. Jim Crow laws existed for nearly 100 years. We're they "settled law"? Of course not and thank goodness.
What we saw them say has become standard cant for Supreme court Justices for the last forty years. "I cannot tell you in advance how I will decide any given case save to say that I will judge it basedm. .http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/justice-thomas-is-right.599683/page-3 Okay define social justice.
And according to the latest decision we should have them back since they weren't against anything in the Constitution at its time of composition.