The way our nation's citizens have turned their back on the Lord, it's no surprise our society has devolved into moral confusion and evil. His attributes are clearly perceived, but we do not give honor to him. So he has left us to our own ways so to speak.

But today Roe was overturned, a small token of evidence that the Lord has not completely forgotten our country. He overlooks the citizens' depravity and gives a win to the helpless. Thank you Lord God and, though we don't deserve it, we pray for a revival in our land with the masses turning to praise your name. So that one day a mother intentionally aborting her child would no longer be something to debate.

I think it's safe to say most of us could pick out each posters stance on this and any real discussion would be fruitless.


However, I do have one question for the ones on here that are in favor of this.

It's pretty clear that at least 4 of the justices lied in their confirmation hearings about this.

Coney Barret in confirmation hearing: "Cases [like Roe] are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

Roberts: "settled as a precedent of the court"

Gorsuch: "a good judge will consider it as precedent"

Kavanaugh: "an important precedent"

Do you think the ends justifies the means here? Are they lying in their comments above or do you think their ruling is a political ruling and their true 'legal' opinions are what they said in their hearings?

amercer said:

---

Roberts didn't vote to overturn Roe, just to uphold the Mississippi law.

But yeah the others were lying. However I'm sure you could find many conformation hearing quotes from both sides where nominees said that they couldn't pre judge any case when the reality was that their minds were already made up.

---

Respectfully, that's not what they said. They could have said that and maintained some level of plausible deniability.

You may be right about left of center justices, but I would need some examples before I accept this as a 'both sides' issue.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

Them saying that Roe is precedent doesn't limit their ability to find legal issue with it later on. Precedent can and is overruled on the Supreme Court from time to time. They aren't limited like lower courts are, if they find issues with it (IANAL, this is just what I've read). Super precedent was also a term thrown out, which they said Roe was not. So I would say these snippets are disingenuous and don't tell the full picture. None of them explicitly said how they would vote on overturning Roe V Wade, which I think you'd need to say they were lying.

Everyone knew they were lying the moment the words came out of their mouths, conservatives just chose to pretend otherwise because it was politically expedient to do so.

File5 said:

---

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

Them saying that Roe is precedent doesn't limit their ability to find legal issue with it later on. Precedent can and is overruled on the Supreme Court from time to time. They aren't limited like lower courts are, if they find issues with it (IANAL, this is just what I've read). Super precedent was also a term thrown out, which they said Roe was not. So I would say these snippets are disingenuous and don't tell the full picture. None of them explicitly said how they would vote on overturning Roe V Wade, which I think you'd need to say they were lying.

---

This is an incredibly generous interpretation.

There is 'no stone unturned', so to speak, as it relates to RvW. It's been hotly discussed for decades. There was no new info that would give them this path.

I find it infinitely more disingenuous for you to paint this as you have above.

Macarthur said:

---

I think it's safe to say most of us could pick out each posters stance on this and any real discussion would be fruitless.


However, I do have one question for the ones on here that are in favor of this.

It's pretty clear that at least 4 of the justices lied in their confirmation hearings about this.

Coney Barret in confirmation hearing: "Cases [like Roe] are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

Roberts: "settled as a precedent of the court"

Gorsuch: "a good judge will consider it as precedent"

Kavanaugh: "an important precedent"

Do you think the ends justifies the means here? Are they lying in their comments above or do you think their ruling is a political ruling and their true 'legal' opinions are what they said in their hearings?

---

Did this challenge come before or after Barrett's confirmation?

And what does precedent have to do with anything? Please note the opinion cites Brown and Plessy in regards to stare decisis bearing on the case. The existence of precedent has no bearing on the constitutionality or morality of a law.

Edit: I mean really how is this a character argument? Is this a moral victory type post? What's the point?

Macarthur said:

---

File5 said:

---

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

Them saying that Roe is precedent doesn't limit their ability to find legal issue with it later on. Precedent can and is overruled on the Supreme Court from time to time. They aren't limited like lower courts are, if they find issues with it (IANAL, this is just what I've read). Super precedent was also a term thrown out, which they said Roe was not. So I would say these snippets are disingenuous and don't tell the full picture. None of them explicitly said how they would vote on overturning Roe V Wade, which I think you'd need to say they were lying.

---

This is an incredibly generous interpretation.

There is 'no stone unturned', so to speak, as it relates to RvW. It's been hotly discussed for decades. There was no new info that would give them this path.

I find it infinitely more disingenuous for you to paint this as you have above.

---

You claimed they were lying when they clearly never said they'd vote one way or another. That's as disingenuous as it gets. Find me where they said they wouldn't vote against it and I'll agree with you. Precedent, the term you've latched onto, does not mean it can't be overturned, yet you've taken it to mean it's the final answer 100% of the time. That's just not true and never has been true for the SC. SC is not limited by precedent and stare decisis like other courts.

Lying by omission is still lying.

Not sure why either side is acting scandalized by this. Conservatives wanted these folks on the court to do exactly what they did. However, everyone was aware that if they said this is what they were going to do, they wouldn't have made it on the court.

But this is also true for pretty much any big issue. None of the current justices were nominated because the president at the time wanted an absolutely neutral arbiter of the constitution. The were nominated because they shared the political philosophy of the ruling party at the time.

You mean to tell me that their implication of precedent was not intended to give the impression of it being "settled"?

Again, the epitome of disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/scotus-justices-roe-wade-abortion.html

I'm only surprised that the conservatives managed to pull it off, not by the mechanism. How are they lying by omission? Precedent is a specific legal term, it doesn't mean they are promising to vote a certain way. The justices go out of their way to be non-committal in hearings for this very reason. Saying something is precedent is not committing.

They say precedent because that's what it is - no one is arguing that. When they have these hearings, whoever is asking questions knows that if they get a precedent answer then they've hit a brick wall because the answer is designed to give flexibility in their future rulings. They wanted a clear cut yes or no to Roe, knowing the potential justice won't give it if they're smart, and then they scream saying they made promises based on precedent. A regular citizen might take that and the media's propaganda and interpret it as you have here, but it's just not correct. Also, couldn't get past the paywall

Edit: didn't mean to post that emoji, meant to keep it a neutral 8-bit cell-phone

Macarthur said:

---

File5 said:

---

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

Them saying that Roe is precedent doesn't limit their ability to find legal issue with it later on. Precedent can and is overruled on the Supreme Court from time to time. They aren't limited like lower courts are, if they find issues with it (IANAL, this is just what I've read). Super precedent was also a term thrown out, which they said Roe was not. So I would say these snippets are disingenuous and don't tell the full picture. None of them explicitly said how they would vote on overturning Roe V Wade, which I think you'd need to say they were lying.

---

This is an incredibly generous interpretation.

There is 'no stone unturned', so to speak, as it relates to RvW. It's been hotly discussed for decades. There was no new info that would give them this path.

I find it infinitely more disingenuous for you to paint this as you have above.

---

Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson say howdy!

No one lied. If you don't understand the distinction, you don't understand constitutional law. Calling them liars is a bald faced lie copied from the Lame Stream Media.

Macarthur said:

---

You mean to tell me that their implication of precedent was not intended to give the impression of it being "settled"?

Again, the epitome of disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/scotus-justices-roe-wade-abortion.html

---

It's precedent until a case with specific facts and specific arguments are before the court and then the court can follow those facts and arguments where they lead and sometimes that's to the overruling of what was until that time precedent.

Martin Cash said:

---

No one lied. If you don't understand the distinction, you don't understand constitutional law. Calling them liars is a bald faced lie copied from the Lame Stream Media.

---

This is what I was trying to say with my post immediately above. Well said sir.

A slap fight over 'lying by omission' during a confirmation hearing like those are anything but political BS.

Far less than 50% disagree with Roe. RBG disagreeing with the specific justification would mean strengthening the finding in further cases, not tossing it. To claim her critiques in support of this finding is extremely disingenuous.

Macarthur said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Coney Barret in confirmation hearing: "Cases [like Roe] are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

---

I explicitly remember in Barrett's confirmation that she said Roe was precedent, but it wasn't settled and could be overturned. i.e. 50% of the country don't accept it and many experts in law think it was a badly argued ruling (including RBG).

---

Even the most generous of interpretations is that they she and Kav 'misled' senators.

Two are on record, one R & one D, that believe they were 'misled'. They also refernenced private conversations and Collins even said point blank she was led to believe Kav would not overturn RvW in those private conversations.

This really isn't in question. If you agree with the ruling, just own it and admit that the lying is worth the lives of 'babies' that you think are being saved.

---

Here is Barrett's full quote (of which you "disingenuously" clipped):

Sen. Klobuchar: Is Roe a super precedent?

Barrett: How would you define super precedent?

Sen. Klobuchar: I thought some day I would be sitting in that chair. I'm not. I'm up here so I'm asking you.

Barrett: Ok. Well people use super precedent differently. The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it's not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn't call for its overruling.

At least two senators are on record saying they were 'misled'. Again, I'm using the more generous language.

They irony here of 'my side' of this debate being called disingenuous.

Macarthur said:

---

At least two senators are on record saying they were 'misled'. Again, I'm using the more generous language.

They irony here of 'my side' of this debate being called disingenuous.

---

I was misled by the quote you posted above. Therefore you're a liar and Roe should remain overturned.

Not even hiding it now....

White nationalist Nick Fuentes rejoices that in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has laid out a blueprint for banning gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception and imposing "Catholic Taliban rule": "We're having something like Taliban rule in America, in a good way!" pic.twitter.com/ZhSxZMBTIh

— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) June 27, 2022

You should take a sabbatical from social media for a few months. It will improve your mental health and by connecting with people across the aisle in real life I think you'll understand how to build bridges to protect the rights you're worried about.

Catholic theocracy is not a legitimate threat.

AGC said:

---

You should take a sabbatical from social media for a few months. It will improve your mental health and by connecting with people across the aisle in real life I think you'll understand how to build bridges to protect the rights you're worried about.

Catholic theocracy is not a legitimate threat.

---

If you are Catholic, then yes, you are correct.

AGC said:

---

You should take a sabbatical from social media for a few months. It will improve your mental health and by connecting with people across the aisle in real life I think you'll understand how to build bridges to protect the rights you're worried about.

Catholic theocracy is not a legitimate threat.

---

Yeah, as Kurt said, I think your view on this may be shaded by the direction from which you come on the issue.

And here's the thing...living in Texas, I (and all of us that are non-religious) are constantly interacting with folks that are religious. We really have a hard time to avoid it in all aspects of life (the ruling today on school prayer takes it to another level now). To say that those of us in a pretty significant minority are the ones that need to 'reach across the aisle' and reconcile with folks that are actively taking away rights, seems pretty twisted, IMO.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

You mean to tell me that their implication of precedent was not intended to give the impression of it being "settled"?

Again, the epitome of disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/scotus-justices-roe-wade-abortion.html

---

It's precedent until a case with specific facts and specific arguments are before the court and then the court can follow those facts and arguments where they lead and sometimes that's to the overruling of what was until that time precedent.

---

Nothing was presented in the case that was new or 'specific'. There are no new opinions or facts in this case. The only new facts in this case have to do with who is judging them. Every reasonable and intelligent person out there knows that the judges that voted to overrule Roe knew how they would vote before the case was even heard. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

And the same people praising the decision of the courts today will be the same people condemning the political nature of the courts years from now when the pendulum swings back.

It seems to me that there is an obvious flaw with having a branch of the federal government appointed by politicians and then asked to be a check on those other branches. Letting people vote for the judges would turn them even more into politicians . . . . which isn't good either.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

You mean to tell me that their implication of precedent was not intended to give the impression of it being "settled"?

Again, the epitome of disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/scotus-justices-roe-wade-abortion.html

---

It's precedent until a case with specific facts and specific arguments are before the court and then the court can follow those facts and arguments where they lead and sometimes that's to the overruling of what was until that time precedent.

---

Nothing was presented in the case that was new or 'specific'. There are no new opinions or facts in this case. The only new facts in this case have to do with who is judging them. Every reasonable and intelligent person out there knows that the judges that voted to overrule Roe knew how they would vote before the case was even heard. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

And the same people praising the decision of the courts today will be the same people condemning the political nature of the courts years from now when the pendulum swings back.

It seems to me that there is an obvious flaw with having a branch of the federal government appointed by politicians and then asked to be a check on those other branches. Letting people vote for the judges would turn them even more into politicians . . . . which isn't good either.

---

The specific facts and arguments of Dobbs are not the same as the specific facts and arguments presented in Roe, but yes, they both involve the same issue(s). The pathway and argument schematic for overruling Roe is the same as it was for overruling Plessy. Roe was precedent. Now it is not because the arguments upon which it was based are flawed, as clearly demonstrated by Kavanaugh's opinion.

Stare decisis doesn't mean that future courts are forever forbidden from reconsidering a prior ruling, especially if the reconsidered decision is from the same court; i.e., there is no court above the USSC. Courts of appeals are bound by precedent in a way that the highest court is not.