Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AL.com)   What lies were said during their Senate confirmation hearings by the villainous Supreme Fatal Five?   (al.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Supreme Court of the United States, John G. Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, justices of the Supreme Court, CLARENCE THOMAS  
•       •       •

2324 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2022 at 3:45 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



54 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-06-25 9:52:48 PM  
So, they lied during their job interview.
 
2022-06-26 2:01:04 AM  
Those were all minor lies to god compared to :

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
 
2022-06-26 3:39:30 AM  

RaceDTruck: So, they lied during their job interview.


In their defense, they likely wouldn't have been confirmed had they told the truth.  For virtually every other job, you'd be fired on the spot for telling such a blatant lie and rightfully so.  For a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in America, though, I guess you just get a shrug and a finger-wagging by the media.

I wonder what's up next for this band of liars.
 
2022-06-26 3:47:05 AM  
I remember the first time I believed a Republican...
 
2022-06-26 3:56:57 AM  
AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the committee, asked Barrett: "So the question comes, what happens? Will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now? Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?"
"Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis," Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts giving weight to precedent when making their decisions.
Barrett went on to say that she would do that for "any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a "super precedent." Barrett replied that the way the term is used in "scholarship" and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.
"And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category," Barrett said.
 
2022-06-26 4:00:58 AM  
This thread again?
Let it go. We all knew what they were going to do. They were groomed for it since their first year in law school. It's part of a 50 year plan.

Their statements were all carefully worded. None of their statements meant that they would never over-turn a long precedent, just that they would no do so lightly. But every thinking person who heard and read their words knew what was coming. I can't even call them being deceptive because of the obvious way that they were invoking abstract ideas.
 
2022-06-26 4:13:25 AM  
Overturning Roe isn't even the endgame. Their goal is to criminalize abortion nationally.
 
2022-06-26 4:23:52 AM  
Lying to Congress while under oath hasn't been a crime* since just after Oliver North. And his convictions were vacated, so it essentially goes back longer than that.

*Unless the lie is about a blowjob, then it's a "high crime."
 
2022-06-26 4:24:07 AM  
So is lying in front of congress something that can be used against these people, or is it just old history at this point?
 
2022-06-26 4:32:15 AM  
Well since SCOTUS cucked Garland in 2916 I suppose he's gonna hit the snooze button on this one too
 
2022-06-26 4:33:33 AM  

Karma Chameleon: Well since SCOTUS cucked Garland in 2916


With obama's time machine
 
2022-06-26 4:44:28 AM  
Of course they're liars - that's why the base loves them.
 
2022-06-26 4:46:41 AM  
What lies DIDN'T they spout?
 
2022-06-26 4:47:35 AM  

Roastbeast Sammich: So is lying in front of congress something that can be used against these people, or is it just old history at this point?


Identify an actual lie.
Gorsuch replied: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."


All that mishmash means is that he thinks that most of the time you leave precedents alone. It doesn't mean ALL the time. So he apparently believes that this is an exceptional circumstance. He apparently believes that Roe was wrongly decided by misconstruing how to understand "liberty" as it applies to the 14th Amendment. His and Alito's opinion sucks. But that doesn't make the quote above a lie.

Now most sane people understand that even as he said the above, he knew that an opportunity would soon arise that would challenge Roe. And he knew that he disagreed with the logic used in Roe. And he knew he would balance the fact of the long precedent with his own opinion about how to interpret the 14A. And he knew he quite likely could wind up voting to over-turn Roe. None of that renders any statement in his quote an actual lie.

One might try to claim that he was very careful to hide the full nature of how significantly he does or doesn't weigh precedent, but we all knew what he meant. There's a message in how one avoids answering questions. And the answer was already known.

We all have a right to be outraged that it happened, but we've got no excuse to be surprised.
 
2022-06-26 4:50:48 AM  
gosh too bad none of em were wearing tan suits or were using binder clips.
 
2022-06-26 5:05:16 AM  

wademh: Roastbeast Sammich: So is lying in front of congress something that can be used against these people, or is it just old history at this point?

Identify an actual lie.

Gorsuch replied: "I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."


All that mishmash means is that he thinks that most of the time you leave precedents alone. It doesn't mean ALL the time. So he apparently believes that this is an exceptional circumstance. He apparently believes that Roe was wrongly decided by misconstruing how to understand "liberty" as it applies to the 14th Amendment. His and Alito's opinion sucks. But that doesn't make the quote above a lie.

Now most sane people understand that even as he said the above, he knew that an opportunity would soon arise that would challenge Roe. And he knew that he disagreed with the logic used in Roe. And he knew he would balance the fact of the long precedent with his own opinion about how to interpret the 14A. And he knew he quite likely could wind up voting to over-turn Roe. None of that renders any statement in his quote an actual lie.

One might try to claim that he was very careful to hide the full nature of how significantly he does or doesn't weigh precedent, but we all knew what he meant. There's a message in how one avoids answering questions. And the answer was already known.

We all have a right to be outraged that it happened, but we've got no excuse to be surprised.


And even if they'd said they wouldn't change it, they're republicans. Nobody in their right mind believes them. They're inveterate liars and the worst people in the world.
 
2022-06-26 5:10:19 AM  
In order to get that high in ANY social structure, you have to have a lot of skill at bullshiatting. Lawyers and judges bullshiat for a living at least some of the time, and some of them most of the time.

The whole purpose of their art is to erect fantabulous logic behind whatever they decide. Laws are frequently vague, and they decide what side of vagueness those laws fall on and how, essentially creating the true structure of law. Entire rights exist or are erased by their ability to write convincing (well, for their side at least) bullshiat.
 
2022-06-26 5:12:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 5:20:58 AM  

teh great bozack: [Fark user image 425x239]


Those "facts" about snakes are essentially BS. There is one odd exception that inhabits an island.
Don't get your facts from memes kids.
 
2022-06-26 5:59:43 AM  

wademh: Identify an actual lie.


Are you saying that lying by omission doesn't count as "actual" lying, or are you saying that you don't know what key information the speaker is intentionally omitting in order to foster a misconception on the part of the listeners?

/the truth
//the whole truth
///nothing but the truth
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 6:02:46 AM  
All of them, I would think.
 
2022-06-26 6:22:34 AM  
Wiki's "all about snaeks

/in conclusion, some snaeks can asexually reproduce
//all snaeks lost their forelimbs to evolution
///some snaeks lost their hindlimbs too, and
.there may or may not be snaeks in Ireland
 
2022-06-26 6:47:35 AM  

LordBeavis: RaceDTruck: So, they lied during their job interview.

In their defense, they likely wouldn't have been confirmed had they told the truth.  For virtually every other job, you'd be fired on the spot for telling such a blatant lie and rightfully so.  For a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in America, though, I guess you just get a shrug and a finger-wagging by the media.

I wonder what's up next for this band of liars.


The three from TFG would have been confirmed no matter what they said.  They could have said they were going to bring back slavery and they'd sail right through.
 
2022-06-26 6:53:48 AM  

Be polite walk on the right: Wiki's "all about snaeks

/in conclusion, some snaeks can asexually reproduce
//all snaeks lost their forelimbs to evolution
///some snaeks lost their hindlimbs too, and
.there may or may not be snaeks in Ireland


What about badgers and mushrooms?
 
2022-06-26 7:02:11 AM  
Within a month this is all behind us and we're off to the next American tragedy and then the next. Mass shootings will increase even as our rights are taken away by the Supreme Taliban Court. Only you can stop wild fires.
 
2022-06-26 7:18:08 AM  
Judge Ginsburg: The soundness of the reasoning is certainly a consideration. But we shouldn't abandon a precedent just because we think a different solution more rational. Justice Brandeis said some things are better settled than settled right, especially when the legislature sits. So if a precedent settles the construction of a statute, stare decisis means more than attachment to the soundness of the reasoning. Reliance interests are important; the stability, certainty, predictability of the law is important. If people know what the law is, they can make their decisions, set their course in accordance with that law. So the importance of letting the matter stay decided means judges should not discard precedent simply because they later conclude it would have been better to have decided the case the other way. That is not enough. If it is a decision that concerns the Constitution, * * * then the Court knows the legislature, in many cases, can't come to the rescue. If the judges got it wrong, it may be that they must provide the correction. But even in constitutional adjudication, stare decisis is one of the restraints against a judge infusing his or her own values into the interpretation of the Constitution.


From RBG's confirmation hearings.
 
2022-06-26 7:36:14 AM  
Why is there no mechanism in place to have the main recent 3 charged with perjury?  Why does it have to be Congress, and only Congress, that can make that call?
 
2022-06-26 7:37:00 AM  

RaceDTruck: So, they lied during their job interview.


Lying for Jesus is legal in religion.
 
2022-06-26 8:06:12 AM  

wademh: Identify an actual lie.


Do you admit all the other lying was wrong, too?
 
2022-06-26 8:18:55 AM  

strathmeyer: wademh: Identify an actual lie.

Do you admit all the other lying was wrong, too?


You haven't identified an actual lie. They never said they would never over-turn Roe.
 
2022-06-26 8:19:56 AM  
I'm shocked that christians - who lie about everything - would be liars.
 
2022-06-26 8:27:52 AM  
Anyone with any organizational backing who's talking to Congress gets briefed, drilled, and supplied with talking point sheets to memorize for any and all likely contentious questions. These were canned answers designed to acknowledge Roe was a precedent and agree to the importance of precedent but without suggesting it's inviolable. Don't think any of this was off the cuff much less candid.
 
2022-06-26 8:33:24 AM  
🍄 are fungus that don't require sunlight for survival

media.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 8:48:44 AM  

Roastbeast Sammich: So is lying in front of congress something that can be used against these people, or is it just old history at this point?


IOKIYAR, obviously.

/hork
 
2022-06-26 8:50:00 AM  
"The nine justices of the Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling Friday, made clear their views on abortion"

No they didn't.

They made their views clear on what the Supreme Court has authority.  9 unelected officials shouldn't have authority over issues not covered in the constitution.

That's what state legislatures are for.
 
2022-06-26 8:55:34 AM  

durbnpoisn: Why is there no mechanism in place to have the main recent 3 charged with perjury?  Why does it have to be Congress, and only Congress, that can make that call?


It's called impeachment and is mostly used against federal judges although charges against sitting presidents is more sexy.  (If you can still say "sexy" when all the brown shirts are streaming out of the crack in the supreme court building as if by magic.)
 
2022-06-26 9:07:07 AM  
I don't feel lied to because I never believed them.
 
2022-06-26 9:42:13 AM  
Tell me there is an actual POINT to taking an OATH, such as if you BROKE your oath to GET your job, you can LOSE your job,

like those of us who lied to get jobs WITHOUT being under oath.
 
2022-06-26 9:54:08 AM  

RaceDTruck: So, they lied during their job interview.


media.swncdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 9:56:16 AM  
They never actually lied, unfortunately. What they did was your typical mealy-mouthed political BS of talking around the issue rather than give a straight answer.

Question: "Will you overturn Roe?"
Answer: "Well, I believe precedent is important and should be taken into grave consideration."

That does not equal a yes or no. It's a line specifically used to make it SOUND like it's a no since Roe has two full cases of precedent, both the original ruling and Casey in 92 that upheld it. So, by logic, if you think precedent is important that means you'll also uphold Roe. But what it MEANS is that the weasels left themselves an out. Now they can go "Well we DID consider precedent and took it all very seriously but still found it to be unconstitutional."
 
2022-06-26 9:59:30 AM  
What pisses me off most is that then we get people like Manchin who come out and say "But I believed them when they said they wouldn't."

Fark you. FARK you. Not a single farking person believed a single WORD they said when it came to Roe because we KNEW what was going to happen when TRUMP JUDGES get into the Supreme Court. If you believed them than you're either farking senile or you're a purposeful patsy.
 
2022-06-26 10:03:29 AM  
Glad to see nothing but true and factual statements during their confirmation processes.
 
2022-06-26 10:06:27 AM  

davynelson: Tell me there is an actual POINT to taking an OATH, such as if you BROKE your oath to GET your job, you can LOSE your job,

like those of us who lied to get jobs WITHOUT being under oath.


It's weird how elected positions are different than standard employment
 
2022-06-26 10:08:07 AM  
Their work is done, so they can retire now.
 
2022-06-26 11:29:12 AM  
In 1869 it was decided to have 9 Supreme Court justices because there were 9 Circuit Courts.

Now there are 13 Circuit Courts. So what exactly are we waiting for?
- Andrea Junker (@Strandjunker) June 25, 2022
 
2022-06-26 11:49:40 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 12:05:26 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 12:43:12 PM  

Stargazer86: TRUMP JUDGES


Stop calling them Trump judges. They're not Trump judges. He never knew they existed before they were selected, he knows nothing about law or even how the judiciary branch works. He just did what he was told.

They are Federalist Society cult stooges, handpicked by Mitch McConnell to usurp the judiciary as a deadhand switch to block and shut down any and all democrat/progressive legislation for a generation or more while the Republicans remain out of power.

The root of this entire mess is this unelected, unappointed organization that has hijacked American politics to enforce their Christion Dominionist sharia worldview. I can't stress this enough: The Federalist Society has done more damage than any politician or judge has ever done, and the day the FBI raid their offices and dismantle their infrastructure brick by brick will be a day of independence and freedom shouted from coast to coast the nation hasn't felt since VJ Day.
 
2022-06-26 1:50:09 PM  

Ishkur: Stargazer86: TRUMP JUDGES

Stop calling them Trump judges. They're not Trump judges. He never knew they existed before they were selected, he knows nothing about law or even how the judiciary branch works. He just did what he was told.

They are Federalist Society cult stooges, handpicked by Mitch McConnell to usurp the judiciary as a deadhand switch to block and shut down any and all democrat/progressive legislation for a generation or more while the Republicans remain out of power.

The root of this entire mess is this unelected, unappointed organization that has hijacked American politics to enforce their Christion Dominionist sharia worldview. I can't stress this enough: The Federalist Society has done more damage than any politician or judge has ever done, and the day the FBI raid their offices and dismantle their infrastructure brick by brick will be a day of independence and freedom shouted from coast to coast the nation hasn't felt since VJ Day.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-06-26 7:11:17 PM  
Has anyone thought of using the 2nd Amendment on these farkers?
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.