Quote (Horford @ Jul 7 2018 01:32am)
Unbelieveable mental gymnastics by Susan Collins here:
>susan wants a candidate who thinks roe vs wade is settled law
>but says a nominee's personal views on roe vs wade is not relevant to her decision... lmao. If it's not relevant, why would she even ask about roe vs wade? What a shitshow of an interview. 😂😂😂😂 this is exactly why i can't stand her, instead of coming out and saying "i won't vote for anyone on the Federalists Society's list" (all of whom are hostile to abortion right) she plays these funny little games to keep all her liberal fans (which i am not one of) guessing... what a fraud...
Your failure to comprehend a very basic differentiation between someone's personal views and a judge's respect for precedent doesn't make it mental gymnastics on her part.
A judge can have personal opinions and still judge based on precedent (and other considerations)
Your should listen to Gorsuch once in awhile. He talked about it frequently and literally wrote a book about it.
Quote (NG)
Gorsuch, who co-wrote a book on legal precedent, told the committee that judges must “start with a heavy, heavy presumption in favor of precedent,” but in “a very few cases,” precedent may be overruled.
..
Senator, I'd respectfully respond that it is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. And as a good judge, you don't approach that question anew as if it had never been decided. That would be a wrong way to approach it.
“My personal views, I'd also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here. I leave those at home.”
Gorsuch said part of being a good judge is “coming in and taking precedent as it stands. And your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.”
..
“Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?” Grassley asked Gorsuch.
“Again, I would tell you that Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States 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 United States 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 United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
Quote (horford)
Not surprised you don't care about rising debt/decifit all of a sudden like the rest of the trumpians.
Not surprised you don't care about intellectual integrity like the rest of the TDS victims and bernouts.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jul 6 2018 11:47pm
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.