Bork is the one that people remember, but others have failed to get the nod over the centuries for various reasons. Bork is the most recent one to get outright rejected however, as they didn't vote on Garland and Meirs withdrew her nomination.

True, I suppose, but how sad it is that human rights in general are seen as an impermissible "progressive project."

It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.

In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.

I good explanation from a source I largely trust:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.

Thank you.

I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.

No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.

How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.

I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.

And this is just one reason why all hormonal contraception will eventually be in the cross-sights:
https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/using-oral-birth-control-pills-ec/

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/im...Key=PI%2F74604

Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.

I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.

Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.

The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer.

Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.

Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.

Where do you live (as in what state, I don't want your home address)?

Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked.

The questions and answers are almost always performative.

The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim.

Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop.

It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about.

Yes, that is certainly what the discussion is about. Right now you're doing a "bothsides" dance, pointing out how bad the Dems are for their supposed performance questions while deliberately ignoring the fact that the Dems were not fooled. Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican.

Of course, the obvious consequence is the question of whether someone without functioning kidneys has a right to a functioning kidney from someone who has two good kidneys.

The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite.

As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side.

Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay.

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

Very often people, particularly politicians say these things performatively. They don't actually think it was perjury. They aren't actually going to do anything about it. It's an opportunity for a storyline they think is going to play, so they run with it. That's all it is. People shouldn't listen to politicians, or opinion journalists as if they are giving us their actual opinions.

I wanted to circle back to this one. So...the Dems who fundraise and campaign off of the threats that Republicans would overthrow Roe v. Wade were just posturing, you say? In a thread discussing the fact that the Reps actually did overthrow Roe v. Wade, even?

And...all those Dems who campaign and fundraise and (more importantly) vote against those Justices because they claimed that Reps want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, those Dems were just actually finding it politically useful to pretend what they said would happen, what they voted against happening, they were pretending it wouldn't happen, you say? Again, in a thread discussing how what they literally said would happen actually did happen?

Yeah, tell me again how this isn't just chaff to deflect blame from the Republicans who also knew this would happen, and forced it through explicitely so that it (and much worse) would happen for decades to come.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...h=7a8a361f5420

Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen.

The fact that the Democrats didn't believe Drunky Mcrapeface or the Stepford wife when they said Roe v. Wade was "settled" doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's nominees weren't LYING. Its still a lie even if not everyone believes you.

For the Oracle.

Kansas City area health system stops providing Plan B in Missouri because of abortion ban

It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071

Now the SC has gutted the EPA

I recently subscribed to r/scotus. This was the last few days of the session and the decisions have been coming fast and furious.

SC has also did not put a stay on a "Independent State Legislature" theory case, which is a Trumpian theory that state legislatures can pick who won a federal election in their state, despite the actual vote. (My characterization may not be 100% accurate. IANAL)

I keep on telling you people, there is no peaceful solution to this.
You will have to choose between your freedom and your pacifism.