There is NO reason why Kavanaugh can't disclose what he thinks is or is not settled law.

[Tom Rinaldo]

According to his own long standing legal beliefs one does not have to agree with the legal reasoning behind matters of "settled law" in order to determine that a matter is "settled law". It has nothing to do with what he deems to otherwise be the legal merits of a case. It is strictly a matter of whether precedence is sufficiently established or not to allow a ruling to be overturned.

Should Kavanaugh still believe, as he seemingly did in that 2003 memo, that Roe Vs Wade is NOT settled law, saying so does not in any way reveal how he would rule on the merits of a case that may end up before him on the Supreme Court. In other words: He is free to admit whether or not Roe Vs Wade is settled law. It in no way compromises his refusal to discuss a case that may come before him on the SC. If it is NOT settled law he can still cling to his refusal to divulge how he would rule on it's merits prior to hearing the actual case.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The problem with the concept of "settled law" is that a legal principle is considered "settled"

only with respect to the lower federal courts, which have to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court can "unsettle" their own previous decisions by just overturning them. This happens more often than one might think. The most famous of these is probably Brown v. Board of Education which overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, but more recently (and worse) we have Citizens United v. FEC, overruling McConnell v. FEC and one other case. Here's a complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions I counted 125 cases that were overruled by subsequent decisions. So there's no good reason to just assume a Supreme Court nominee would follow the precedent of an existing Supreme Court case, and he's bullshitting if he tries to pass that off as an assurance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Understood. But Senator Collins I believe claimed that she had assurances from Kavanaugh that

Roe Vs Wade was settled law. What is and is not settled law, as you point out, is a moving target. But that doesn't stop anyone from expressing an opinion on that matter. Correct me if I'm wrong (sincerely) but if Collins is using a private so called "assurance" from Kavanaugh that Roe Vs Wade is settled law as her cover for voting for him, then I think he needs to speak to that matter in public, and he has no excuse not to.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I think that's exactly what's happening.

Collins almost always folds like a cheap lawn chair anyhow, and she's using the "settled law" statement as cover for her eventual vote even though it's pretty meaningless when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

[Hoyt]

3. Every case is different in some respects. Insights change too. Sometimes it works in our favor,

sometimes not. Hope most Justices will follow precedent in this situation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Right. But see my above reply concerning Susan Collins

She pledged to support Roe Vs Wade from those joining the SC who would repeal it, and claimed she had assurances from Kavanaugh that it is settled law. She is using that private meeting so called "assurance" as cover for not opposing him. This is about exposing Sen. Collins regarding not keeping her pledge to voters. The way to do so is by forcing Kavanaugh to reveal his opinion in public, which I strongly suspect would undercut Collin's planned reason for supporting him.