'Kegs' Kavanaugh: Roe v. Wade 'An Important Precedent That's Been Reaffirmed Many Times'

[speak easy]

Last edited Thu May 5, 2022, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Kavanaugh: Roe v. Wade 'An Important Precedent of the Supreme Court That's Been Reaffirmed Many Times

One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years

Senator Feinstein: Is Roe v Wade settled precedent or could it be overturned?

[Kegs] Senator, I said that it's settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court and entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know. And most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.

And as you well recall, Senator, when that case came up, the Supreme Court didn't just reaffirm it in passing. The Court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it.

And the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Souter, at great length, went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.

Senator Feinstein:'I have been told before that a nominee will follow precedent, but once confirmed, they don't.'

[Kegs] Senator And I understand, your point of view on that, Senator, and I understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. I understand the importance of the issue. I understand the importance that people attach to the Roe v Wade decision, to the Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision.

I don't live in a bubble. I understand -- I live in the real world. I understand the importance of the issue

Senator Feinstein: Have your views changed since you were in the Bush White House?

[Kegs] I will tell you what my view right now is, which (is) it's an important precedent of the Supreme Court that's been reaffirmed many times.

[Planned Parenthood v Casey reaffirmed Roe] so Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It's not as if it's just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and has never been reconsidered. But Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-important-precendent-thats-been-reaffirmed-many-times

[sop]

1. He lied about Roe v Wade, he lied about drinking and he lied about rape.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Come on people, who on the right or left, if they were being honest, didn't know and understand...

that this frat boy twerp was lying through his teeth and saying what he needed to get the job.

[IzzaNuDay]

4. +1

He played the game. The Senate got played.

[IzzaNuDay]

3. Are his pants smoking yet?

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

[speak easy]

5. his balls are suitably tanned

:fuck 'im:

[LaMouffette]

6. The thing is that Kavanaugh did not flat-out lie. What he did was give a non-answer. He dodged the

question by stating a list of facts about Roe v. Wade. It's like if someone asked a bank robber, "Did you rob that bank?" and the robber replied, "Banks get robbed. That bank was robbed. It was robbed and thousands of dollars were stolen. It was a bank robbery. The bank robbery happened. Bank robbery is a crime. That is my view right now, that bank robbery is a crime."

I honestly don't know why they hold confirmation hearings at all, if the candidates are allowed to evade answering questions in this way. I wish that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett could all be questioned all over again and this time around, with the amazing Katie Porter doing all the questioning for the Dems.

[In It to Win It]

7. Agreed. What he did was give a response but not an answer.

Confirmation hearings are useless, or less than useless if that's possible. Why do we even have them anymore? Nominee dodges questions and it gives senator a chance to get out a campaign message and raise some money (may have answered my own question of why senators still do them).

[DFW]

10. I unfortunately have to agree

K said that Roe was absolutely established precedent. He never said that he would never vote to overturn that established precedent. I think he was expertly prepped by some smart abortion opponents who knew the question would come, and coached him on how to dance around it without taking a stand one way or the other.

He just acknowledged that the thousand year old tree in front of him had been there for a thousand years. He never said he wouldn‘t cut it down, the first chance he got, which is exactly what he is trying to do.

[uponit7771]

12. +1,

[Ms. Toad]

13. Agreed, as to your first paragraph.

I'm so sick of reading these "They lied under oath" threads. They did not.

As to your second paragraph, it is unethical for judges to make substantive comments on how they might rule on matters which might come before them. The purpose of confirmation hearings isn't to pick judges/justices based on how they plan to rule. It is to review their character, fitness to serve, and judicial philosophies (generally). From a perspective of fitness to serve, I would be more concerned with any potential justice who stated they would, or would not uphold or overturm a specific decision than with someone who answers such as those asked with their general judicial philosophy.

[Takket]

8. If we had a just society...

The three horsemen would be impeached and removed, then convicted of perjury. But we don’t have a just society.

[niyad]

9. If we had a just society, neither those three, scalito or clarence would have

ever been nominated, much less confirmed.

[Zeitghost]

11. I don't see a single falsehood

It's not even an answer really, it's a statement of facts about the legal state of Roe at that time and doesn't go into his personal or legal opinion on whether Roe should be upheld or overturned at all.

Roe was precedent that had been reaffirmed, it was an important case that people had strong feelings about.

He was basically asked if he enjoyed long hot summer days and responded by stating the temperature and humidity at the time. It's not a real answer to the question being asked.

[speak easy]

14. What would constitute a lie?

Even a statement of intention is still only an intention.

[lame54]

15. I'm starting to think Kavanaugh DOESN'T like beer

[gldstwmn]

16. All three of Trump's SC picks answer to their dark money masters.

Looking back on their answers regarding ROE, they were quite disingenuous.