Merrick Garland has shown what kind of person he really his via his job running DOJ. A hopeless leftist political hack totally comfortable using the DOJ and FBI to attack Biden's political opponents. Its the one instance where McConnell did the right thing and its a big one. We really dodged a bullet with this Garland jackass. He is a corrupt authoritarian.
A nominee can properly testify that they respect stare decisis and that some cases are treated as the law of the land and at the same time acknowledge that there are times when settled law must be corrected. Plessy v. Fergueson was settled law, until it wasn't and all lefties agree that that is a good thing. Senators are entitled to question nominees for the purpose of determining whether they will and are of a nature to approach the law by giving great and careful weight to precedent but THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED to extract a commitment from a nominee to vote in a certain way as a condition of having their nomination approved. That is unethical and illegal for a Senator to do that. Apparently many senators are butt hurt because they thought they had successfully done that even though it would have been unethical and illegal. FAIL.
Predictably, they uniformly voted per their political leanings, prevarications during the confirmation hearings notwithstanding. They either were evasive or they lied outright. You will note, however, that the more liberal nominees were clear and honest in their responses to questions. It's an integrity thing. Get some.
Yes, the liberal justices said that they already had a position on cases that might come before the court whereas many of the conservatives said they could not commit before weighing all factors. That is what makes the lib justices the political hacks that they are. Speaking of lib justices, it is an inconvenient truth that Ruth Ginsberg- while sideing with the majority in Roe- acknowledged that the reasoning was sloppy and relied upon the wrong set of arguments and that the much of the abortion issue should be decided by the legislatures. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. It is something the court pulled out of its arse. And Ruthie agreed with that. Persons might have right to privacy deriving from some statutory rights but not constitutional. “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
Bullshit. They voted exactly as expected. Except they either lied or obfuscated first. Go piss in someone else's ear and tell them it's raining.
Yes, they voted as expected based on their judicial histories and philosophies from their prior lives, utterances, and experience on the lower courts. That is not a problem. That is why they were nominated. duh. But that does not mean that they gave a commitment to vote in a certain way or abandoned the process of looking at each case as it came before them. The fact that you expected them to vote in a certain way does not mean they are committed to do doing so. The history of the supreme court is littered with nominees who you might have expected to do one thing but did another. The most liberal justice (based on number of impactful decisions) was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a hard core three term republican governor appointed by a republican president. But once he got on the court he went full lib on steroids. So maybe a justice votes as you expect or they may say they will look at each case anew and actually end out going another direction. They are actually free to do that. They are not free to commit to voting in a certain way before hearing the case. That is a violation of judicial ethics and the law. Should you have additional butthurt from the court decision, please use the from below. Thanking you in advance.
Indeed, if a previous decision was incorrect and was not rendered with upholding The Constitution at it's core, then subsequent justices would not being doing their job if it was not reversed.
Wrong. But what is true is there is no right to own a gun in the constitution. Bearing arms is totally different than owning. Owning isn’t even a synonym. But you don’t let that stop you from pulling made up rights out of your ass.