Should Amy Barrot and Brett Kavanaugh be punished fot lying?

Hold on I'll get another bucket.

 

Widespread resistance to enforcing draconian laws may be most effectively implemented at the local level exercising prosecutorial discretion and prioritization, especially as the increased preference for medical abortion would require a Staci-like surveillance of internet communication and personal mail, antithetical to American respect for privacy.

 

Certainly not regarding the repeal of Roe v Wade - or addressing firearm permissiveness.

I oppose capitol punishment as yet another arrogation of power by a clearly fallible State apparatus - whether Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Angola, Afghanistan, or the United States, but I accept that is not currently the prevailing opinion.

 

I watched the hearings. I KNOW they did not lie. They said what I said they said above. I do care that people accuse people of lying when they do not lie. You should knock it off.

 

Turning the issue over to the states also turns enforcement of state laws over to the states. This is not an issue at the federal level any longer.

 

Thus, prosecutorial discretion at the local level determines how draconian the negation of the majoritarian-supportd established law of half-a-century will be.

 

It always has and still does.

 

I’m going to re-post this. It seems there are a lot of people still repeating the false premise of the OP.

It’s not Brett’s fault progressives didn’t understand his arguments prior to confirmation or after.

This may help those simply parroting talking points heard on TV.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/05/app-politics-section/history-overruled-supreme-court-roe/index.htm

Personally, I find elective abortion outside of rape etc. reprehensible. As a pragmatist who believes in bodily autonomy (personal bodily autonomy) I can understand how some can conflate the autonomy of women with that of a fetus. And when I put on my glasses with the secular humanist lenses, I can appreciate the argument abortion is preventing the correct people from existing in society.

Considering all the above, I suggest ya’ll engage in this term “democracy” I hear thrown around a lot. The court is correct on overturning RvW. It was a bad decision based on a bad argument before the court. Now we have the opportunity to do things correctly. Use the democratic process. Fix whatever you see as the problem by making a strong argument for your position and convincing the majority to pass legislation that correctly addresses the issue. Stop wishing for the SC to legislate positions you can’t or won’t legislate where appropriate—the legislative branch of government.

Using false premises like the OP is not a convincing argument. It’s not the partisan ideologues that will decide this thing.

Both sides need to present convincing arguments free of fallacy and false premise to sway those voters who base their vote on logic and reason as opposed to emotion or selfish desires.

 

You're not in America?

 

Kavanaugh gave Collins the distinct impression he would not repeal Roe. His tiptoeing though the intellectual tulips fall on deaf ears.

The court has made an epic blunder in repealing R v W.

R v W was voted 7-2 with five of the justices republicans, upheld numerous times, and was the law of the land for 50 yers.

That it has repealed it, the intellectual arguments for doing so won't matter to the women's whose lives have been affected, and in many cases, ruined because of it, not to mention injuries and deaths will increase amongst the poorer women.

 

I did not know that one justice could make such a ruling. Doesn't it require more than one?

No one will be harmed by the ruling. SCOTUS just sent the issue back to the states where it belongs.

 

I am a born American living in the U.S.A. I was raised outside the U.S. but I'm here now for the past 60 some years.

 

Roe V Wade is the not the first settled constitutional law to become unsettled later on. Plessy and Dred Scott are two well known ones. It has happened before and will happen again. I can't offer an opinion on how Collins interpreted what Cavanaugh said. Elections have consequences.

 

It was the settled law of the land at the time they spoke. That is no longer true because the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. This is in keeping with the words of former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Your complaint is without merit.

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

Any one who hasn't made up their mind at least a couple a months ahead of voting day, their mind is mush.

 

In this case, justices knowingly, shamelessly, misleading senators to get onto the Court devalues their legislating from the bench from a moral, not a legal perspective.

Such deception could be a justification for prosecutors ignoring their rulings. Lying to gain appointment to the Court clearly wreaks havoc with respect for the Court.

Kegs Kavanaugh:

“Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law,” Kavanaugh responded, per notes taken by “multiple” staffers at the meeting, the Times said. “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” Kavanaugh elaborated, according to these notes, and also claimed, “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

“This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting longstanding precedents that the country has relied upon,” Collins said in a statement.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the lone Democrat to back Kavanaugh, voiced similar sentiments. “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...nominees-misled-them/ar-AAYRPS1?ocid=BingNews
​

 

A right to privacy does not trump (no pun intended) a fetus right to life. Further, the SCOTUS ruling does not say that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. It merely allows states to decide for themselves when a threshold between an abortion and a late term abortion occurs. Row v Wade established that threshold at the end of the second trimester. In doing so, the invoked the phrase "the viability of fetus", but their ruling was not based on any scientific evidence. The fact that was ignored by the SCOTUS in the Row v Wade decision was that many babies born prior to the end of the second trimester and survived. Therefore, the SCOTUS decision was based on an arbitrary timeframe and not science.

So, why should the states have the responsibility of deciding where that threshold is? Because, of the 10th Amendment. Any power not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited from the states, by the Constitution resides with the State and the People. The responsibility of regulating health care is not delegated to the Federal Government by the US Constitution. Therefore, it resides with the State.

 

Sorry, that is partisan and wrong.

 

Lying to get appointed to the Court is partisan and wrong.

Adhering to the precedent of half-a-century that is respected by most Americans as prosecutors refuse to prioritize such contrived illegalities is entirely appropriate.

 

What 'minority opinion'?

 

I agree that it is wrong. Fortunately none of the SC candidates lied.

 

The deception is deliberate and blatant. Respect for the Court is, thereby, seriously diminished.

Gutting a long-established right and arrogating power over wombs to impersonal politicians in place of women making personal choices in consultation with loved ones and spiritual and medical advisers aligns the United States with Iraq, Egypt, Nicaragua and El Salvador rather than advanced, democratic societies, a moral retrogression that most Americans will not accept.

The next stage of government intrusion will be an attempt to deal with the reality of medical abortion, authoritarians invading private communications, and personal mail. More that half of abortions in the U.S. are now self-administered, and that percentage is increasing.

 

Deception and lie mean the same thing. There was no lie, no deception. Sorry. Americans have no choice but accept the decision. It won't change. You would do well to express your position to state politicians. The federal ones can't help you.

 

Their blatant deception devalues respect for their rulings, and rightly so.

The next stage of government intrusion will be an attempt to deal with the reality of medical abortion, authoritarians invading private communications, personal mail. and our homes.

More that half of abortions in the U.S. are now self-administered, and that percentage is increasing.