Both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh testified at their Senate hearings that they considered Roe v. Wade to be an established precedent.
Now, it appears that they will join with three other extremist justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has been in effect for half a century.
They both lied.
Is that perjury?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Well, yes, it is perjury but so what. The GOP has been operating on a “the ends justify the means” basis now for decades and this is just another “so what, neener, neener, neener” item.
The hypocrisy of the GOP is so flagrant in that childish “na-nah, na-NAH-naaaaaah” in-your-face way that they don’t stand for anything other than the putrescent and festering rot they effluviate with every reported quote and proclamation, expounding upon individual rights while scheming at a fever pitch to eliminate them.
GOP = Gulling Our People; Gutting Our Poor; Guarding Our Plutocrats; God’s Our Propaganda; Greed’s Our Principle; Guile’s Our Policy; Galling Obfuscation & Perjury;…….(please add your own)….
GOP = Gool Ol Pricks!
Good Ol Pricks not Gool.
Ghoul ol’ Pricks too!
I used to say Groveling Old Penumbras, but those young ones (Madison Cawthorne, Josh Hawley) are worse.
I like some of Duane’s & Yossarian’s.
How about Greedy Ogre-ish Pricks?
BRAVO
Ah, but here’s the rub. The only way to punish them for their lies and remove them from the US Supreme Court is to have Congress impeach them and without a 3/4 majority vote in the Senate, they will not lose their seats on the U.S. Supreme court.
Most elected Republicans and those that voted for them don’t care if a conservative lies, cheats, is a murderer, rapes children or women, steals, or is a traitor.
Expand the court!
But in order to do that, we have to win both houses in the Midterms, a tall order!
Susan Collins has said as much. She also said Trump “had learned his lesson” after the 1st impeachment. SHE is lying to us. Surprise.
Only us, the ‘unwashed’ get punished for lying.
When Trump finally kicks it from his diet of Adderall and cheeseburgers, here’s my suggestion for his epitaph:
Here lies Donald Trump,
but that’s nothing new.
🙂
If they didn’t lie, then their remarks were, at the very least, disingenuous and misleading. I’m sure that lawyers can find some way to parse the language in their confirmation hearings and in Alito’s draft to make it seem as if they didn’t really say what we all heard them say.
I would appear that Stare Decisis has a meaning for Justice Roberts, who discussed it during his confirmation hearings. Some of his decisions have had nuance. Apparently the distant right does not have that same ability. Life to them is a matter of negatives and positives. No gray areas. Life is a matter of Good vs. Evil, a Manichean universe. It cannot to be wrong to lie to Evil if you are Good.
fair to say that they lied by omission – by failing to add that settled law can be ‘unsettled.’ anyone who knows that they were both brought up catholic ( to believe that abortion is a mortal sin) could have worked this one out. only the gullible were mislead.
“settled law can be unsettled” is something Catholics believe?
Some Catholics believe that someone who hasn’t had sexual intercourse is a virgin even if they have engaged in other sexual activities. Some folks even say that means the person hasn’t had “sexual relations” yet.
Testifying under oath that “I didn’t steal the money” is perjury if you stole the money. According to your logic, it would not be perjury if the person lied by omission and left out the words “I took the money but planned to give the money back some day so it wasn’t stealing.”
When you tell your kid that they cannot watch that tv show tonight and and your kid replies “I promise I won’t watch that tv show’, and then goes right up to his room and watches the tv show, do you accept his excuse that when he said “I won’t watch the tv show” in response to your question, he meant “I won’t watch the tv show right this second, but I will go immediately up to my room and turn on the tv and watch that show.”
No one was “gullible”. They simply believed that it would hard for someone to testify under oath that they would not watch the tv show and then immediately go up and watch the tv show. Apparently that would not be perjury because they didn’t add that they would watch the tv show in one minute.
It’s the kind of nonsense that – incomprehensibly to me – always works when Republicans pull it. It works to defend them from serious crimes!
I can’t tell if your comment implies you think this is acceptable. If that is what you mean, it tells you much the Republican Party has made this country into one where ethics are transactional and unnecessary.
No democracy can work when nearly half of the public raise their families embracing the ethics of Trump, where lying is always okay as long as you have the privilege and connections to get away with it.
a key line ONLY THE GULLIBLE WERE MISLEAD, which could add the words AND ONLY THE CONSPIRATORS PRETENDED TO BE MISLEAD
Excellent point, Ciedie
and that would include suzy-q collins
Well said, Ciedie!
Suzy-Q. LOL.
Saying something is an established precedent isn’t the same thing as saying it can’t be overruled. So, no, they didn’t perjure themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/03/trump-justices-roe-collins/
From the above article, describing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh assuring Susan Collins that Roe v Wade was settled law:
Collins’s and Murkowski’s assurances always threatened to blow back on them. In a statement Tuesday, Collins said that if the leaked decision were final, it would be “completely inconsistent” with what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh told her.
At the same time, some of these nominees — Kavanaugh, especially — offered answers that are somewhat difficult to square with what we see today, even as they kept the door ajar.
In his hearings, Kavanaugh was under great pressure on this issue, especially given how tight the vote was at the time. He needed Collins. When asked about Roe, he repeatedly described it as “precedent on precedent” and “settled as precedent,” citing other decisions that affirmed it, including Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He said a decision by the court to overturn precedent should be rare and that a majority of the court disagreeing with a prior decision should not be enough to overturn it.
At the same time, he declined to say that the case was “correctly settled” or “settled law.”
Gorsuch, in contrast, did agree that abortion was “settled law” but added that caveat of “in the sense that it is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.” He also said he accepted it was the “law of the land” that the Supreme Court had ruled that a fetus is not a person under the 14th Amendment.
Yeah, these answers were slippery, but everyone with a brain knew they were slippery at the time, and nobody with a brain thought they were saying that Roe could not be overturned or that they would never vote to overturn Roe. This isn’t lying and it’s not perjury. It was typical evasiveness at a nomination hearing. And Collins is a fool.
Since when is “everybody with a brain knew he was testifying under oath to deceive the public” an excuse for perjury?
Saying something is SETTLED precedent and precedent over precedent when your definition of “settled precedent” is “we can overturn it as soon as we have a chance” is perjury. Why the bending over backward to say it isn’t? Sounds like saying “it depends what the meaning of “is” and “sexual relations” is and then saying that a person is immune from perjury because “everyone knows” what he meant.
Collins is no fool. She was just playing the game as well. My reading.
“Collins said that if the leaked decision were final, it would be “completely inconsistent” with what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh told her.”
Wow, Collins has really strong words to communicate her feelings effectively.
These folks were prevaricating under oath. Those who study the law can presumably detect the difference between that and perjury. Susan Collins has a BA in Govt (summa cum laude Sarah Lawrence), but not a law degree. OTOH she has been a legislator for 25 years and has presumably picked up some law along the way. She has also participated in the last eight Senate confirmation hearings for nominees to SCOTUS. I suspect she knows prevarication when she hears it.
Yesterday, protestors wrote a chalk message to Collins on the sidewalk outside her Maine home, calling on her to support legislation for wonen’s health care. Terrified, she called the police. I assume the locals will bear the cost of a 24-hour security guard to prevent future chalking.
Diane, the WaPo article you cite links to a CNN article where it states Kavanaugh said “a majority of the court disagreeing with a prior decision should not be enough to overturn it.” Per the CNN article, here’s what Kavanaugh actually said at his confirmation hearing:
“’The Supreme Court can overturn its prior precedents, but there is a series of conditions, important conditions, that, if faithfully applied, make it rare… And the system of precedence rooted in the Constitution, it is not a matter of policy to be discarded at whim.’ Notably, when a Republican senator asked Kavanaugh a hypothetical question that abstractly described abortion foes’ arguments for overturning Roe, Kavanaugh returned to the idea that the court sets ‘forth a series of conditions that you look for before you consider what you would overrule.’ If the court thought a prior decision was ‘grievously wrong,’ it would then go ‘on to the next steps of the stare decisis inquiry,’ he said, which includes other factors the court takes into account.”
Kavanaugh tossed out a word salad to say yes and no at the same time.
Haha, Diane: thanks for cutting through my word salad to pinpoint the truth of the matter! 😀
oops my replies are in moderation– forgot that wordpress doesn’t like BK’s surname 😉
My other comment is held up in moderation.
It all depends on Kavanaugh’s own definition of “settled law” and “law of the land”.
Kavanaugh’s defense of perjury seems to be that his own definition of “settled law” and “law of the land” comes with an asterisk in which folks under oath are immune from perjury charges because their own definition of a word or phrase is their own, and they should be able to use their own definition of the word to to mislead under oath without anyone accusing them of perjury.
Of course the follow up would be to point out that Kavanaugh knowingly committed perjury because when a democratic president used the same excuse that Kavanaugh defenders are using — that he testified under oath using words that he believed were “technically” true because of his own interpretation of what the words meant even though the intent was to deceive– Kavanaugh and his mentor Ken Starr claimed that action is absolutely, positively perjury.
So Kavanaugh needs to testify under oath his explanation of why what he said was not perjury when he charged that a democratic president doing the same thing was perjury.
Both intended to deceive. Kavanaugh himself already made it clear that he knows it is perjury to testify under oath to deceive, even if there is some twisted way that the deception is “technically true”.
So Kavanaugh intentionally testified knowing he was committing perjury. Or maybe like most Republicans, he believes laws only apply to Democrats — and that makes him unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Justice. He must step down.
It all depends on the meaning of the word “precedent”!
Kavanaugh committed the same perjury that the husband of “she who may not be named did”. And Kavanaugh was right there claiming that was perjury.
Given that Kavanaugh himself has made it clear that perjury is giving answers designed to deceive, regardless of whether the speaker has some convoluted reasoning that makes those statements technically true, there is no doubt that Kavanaugh committed perjury BY HIS OWN DEFINITION OF PERJURY.
And Kavanaugh committed material perjury, unlike the man who he claimed committed perjury even though the question and answer were not material to the case. Kavanaugh committed perjury in a Senate hearing, not in a civil deposition.
But it all dependents on the meaning that Kavanaugh gives to words like “established precedent” and “settled precedent”.
It all depends on the meaning that Kavanaugh gives to words like “is”.
Hoisted by his own petard. Although as a Republican, he is considered to be above the law and may continue to commit as many crimes as he wants because only “enemies of the state” (i.e. Democrats) can be prosecuted for breaking laws.
(Sorry for multiple posts, as my previous posts seem to have disappeared.)
Good afternoon Diane and everyone,
Perhaps the justices should have been asked under what circumstances Supreme court precedent can be overturned and does Roe meet those circumstances.
It wouldn’t help. They’d just say that’s an issue that might come before the Court and that therefore they cannot answer.
Mamie,
They would have just committed perjury again if they were asked that question. They chose not to tell the truth, to lie under oath.
Their excuse is that despite being under oath, they decided that words mean whatever the person lying under oath says they mean when that person is caught committing perjury.
“settled as precedent” “precedent on precedent”
The Kavanaugh defenders sound as believable as the person who said it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Kavanaugh said it was perjury to lie under oath regardless of whatever meaning the person gives to the words. Let’s hold Kavanaugh to the same standard he insists others must meet but that he, himself, doesn’t have to follow.
Like most Republicans, laws are only for the little people.
The hearings have become a joke anyway with these judges dancing around almost every question, and their reasoning is often less than stellar. Even though they said it was precedent, I didn’t think for a minute that they wouldn’t overturn Roe if they got the chance.
Agree with you, Mamie. They were chosen for this reason and they knew it and everyone but Susan Collins knew it.
Of course they lied and committed perjury.
The committed the same perjury that Bill Clinton did when he was under oath in a deposition for a civil trial. Bill Clinton defined “sexual relations” as “sexual intercourse”. That was HIS definition of what he meant, and it was wasn’t completely invented because Clinton grew up in an era where someone could say they were a “virgin” who “hasn’t had sex yet” or “hasn’t gone all the way” even if they had participated in oral sex.
The so-called liberal media rejected that defense and deemed it perjury because Clinton’s answer under oath was an attempt to mislead and deceive.
The double standard is that the so-called liberal media will jump through hoops to declare that what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did was NOT perjury. Sure both of them intended to deceive, but if their words are parsed very, very carefully and taken out of context, it is clear that there is some way that they can be deemed “technically” true because of their own definition of what the words they said meant.
And what is most outrageous is that Clinton’s arguable “perjury” was about an immaterial point in a civil deposition where the only purpose was to embarrass him to recount intimate details of a consensual sexual relationship that did not include sexual intercourse.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch’s perjury came when they were under oath before a Senate committee and answering a question that was directly related to the matter at hand.
Yes, they committed perjury. And unlike Clinton, their perjurious statements were material.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be called to testify under oath before the Senate and answer these questions: Did Bill Clinton commit perjury when he said in a deposition that he did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky because Bill Clinton’s definition of “sexual relations” included sexual intercourse and therefore he did not commit perjury because giving misleadings answers under oath is legal?”
And the follow-up question to Kavanaugh? Why did you and Ken Starr call that perjury?
And then: Please explain why the answers you gave under oath to these questions are not perjury?
Once Kavanaugh and Gorsuch explain how their answers were NOT perjury, those explanations under oath will also be parsed for perjury. And I won’t be surprised if they have once again committed that crime.
Lying with impunity is an essential Republican strategy.
It’s astonishing how completely blatant it is now. Trump, McCarthy. When I said that we should bomb Mexico, I meant “photobomb.”
Closely related to the pending SCOTUS decision on abortion are the threats of violence that the Biden people refuse to condemn. A quote from the linked essay below: “I thought President Trump should be impeached over January 6. I still do.” Do this blog’s readers favor threats against SCOTUS justices?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/bidens-thug-government/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first
Biden has consistently condemned violence from whatever group, right, left or middle of the road.
False equivalence by Kim Fischer. Biden is not giving wild speeches about marching down to Kavanaugh’s house to fight like hell to save our country. Biden condemns violence. Trump incites it, and does nothing for HOURS while it is raging inside the Capitol. Lock him up. Mafia boss in a fancy tie (made in China).
“or middle of the road BUT NOT THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THE US MILITARY COMMITS ON A DAILY BASIS AROUND THE WORLD.”
Continuing the thought: of which he is in command.
Only the prominent Republican leaders favor threats of violence toward justices and towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them and point out their lies. Republican leaders don’t condemn violence, they ENCOURAGE it!
I would settle for a Republican leader who did ENCOURAGE violence! Have you condemned Trump and all of the Republicans who encourage violence yet? If so, I must have missed it.
Please condemn the violent threats Republicans — and the violent actions — of Republicans, since none of the Republican leaders do.
And no one here favors threats of violence except perhaps some right wing folks like you.
Still waiting for you to start condemning the Republicans who threaten violence, but that would mean condemning Republican leaders!
I read the link and there haven’t been threats! Nothing like the threats against AOC and Pelosi and nothing like encouraging folks to storm a building even if it means killing and assaulting police officers. To “protest” because you couldn’t steal an election and have fascism in this country with a hateful man who encourages violence!
Look in the mirror.
Well, we learned that January 6th was simply “legitimate political discourse.”
When Republicans make threats ( and deceive), it’s just a little old political game. But anything that jeopardizes or even questions their power-hungry agenda and imposition of their values on everyone else is a threat.
The other day someone compared the protests of 2020 with January 6th and called them equivalent. There’s a significant difference between looting an appliance store (which is objectionable) to preventing the constitutional transfer of power.
But whatever, Kim. Keep making false equivalencies so that your guilty conscience is soothed.
The standard-bearer of the GOP wanted to bomb Mexico and have the police and military shoot BLM protestors and innocent asylum seekers at our border. I didn’t think when I was 16 that the country would look like this when I was an old man. Off the deep end.
The midterms this year are beginning to look like the most important elections in our history. I really think that the future of democracy is at stake. The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. It is a template and precedent for overturning a whole body of law based on unenumerated rights and empowering the state to use violence to gut voting rights and turn back the clock. But here’s the thing, the troglodytes of the extremist, fascist, nationalist, fundamentalist party that the GOP has become have no clue how far behind the country, and especially the country’s young people, they are. They have drawn their swords on a tide that will wash them away, in time. In the long term, after much ugliness, they lose.
In the middle of the last century, we fought a world war against two nationalist tribalist powers. In this one, it’s beginning to look as though that war will be fought again right here, within our borders. I fear for my grandchildren. Rough times ahead.
As always with this blog, the ad hominem begins whenever anyone deviates in the slightest from far Left orthodoxy. The essay I linked to was written by a conservative former prosecutor who specifically condemns Trump for Jan. 6 – as he has done many times before. Why would I link to him if I didn’t agree with him – I do. It is simply not true that Biden and his press secretary have condemned the implied threats against the SCOTUS justices – they haven’t.
The usual “Ad hominem” defense. I addressed the issue.
Sorry that you didn’t appreciate my closing.
The link you included, however, is not representative of Republican thinking. Just because you post a rare voice of conservatism that disagrees with the Trump-owned GOP, it does not mean that this is Republican thinking.
There is very little “far left” on this blog. As a matter of fact, there is very little on this blog that is not pretty middle.
Consider: the “Far Left” might advocate for the nationalization of oil production or car manufacturing. I have never read the first comment here suggesting that the nationalization of industrial production is a good idea.
Consider: The “Far Left” would sound a lot like the far right, threatening and violent, advocating everything but the use of nuclear warfare directed at the opposition. Most of these people would settle for honest, wise governance.
As a matter of fact, violence on the left has been pretty sparse recently. It has been a long time since the Weather Underground.
Roy,
I’m thoroughly disappointed that you didn’t at least point me out as a far left winger here. As I’ve said for many years, “I’m so far left that I am right!”
And no, being far left in America does not in anyway imply the sanctioning of violence except in self-defense during an immediate threat.
“Far left orthodoxy”. LOL. The “far left” gets attacked even more than anything right-wing on this blog. This blog is solidly centrist/liberal/Democrat, none of which remotely approaches “far left”. Left starts at anti-capitalism, which this blog is decidedly not.
Veracity is exclusive to the left. Whatever Kim writes should be viewed with suspicion since the right destroyed the reputations of all of its adherents. KellyAnne Conway’s “alternative facts” were the nail to the coffin.
When the right wing tells Kim Fischer that the rights of women to vote will not be taken away, does she/he believe them or not. NOT.
I have a strategy for avoiding that, Ms. Fischer, I always consult The Socialist Libtard Snowflake Catechism by Bernie Sanders, AOC, Satan, and CRT before I hit the send button. That way I can make sure that I’m way, way, way out there on the FAR left and completely, utterly dronelike and orthodox in my responses. You know how it is. I live in fear all the time that I will be barred by the far Left Illuminati reptilian space alien cabal from using the secret handshake! And lose my Security Clearance for operating the Jewish Space Lasers.
Kim Fischer,
FYI, you should take seriously the comment from the person who said “The “far left” gets attacked even more than anything right-wing on this blog.”
Those who claim to be “far left” on here were happy to have Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and are clearly big fans like you are. It was very important to them to prevent a Democrat from filling those two Supreme Court seats and they are very pleased they got exactly what they wanted!
How do I know they are pleased? Do you see any criticism of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by them? They are far more outraged at some monolithic “democrats” and won’t say a negative word about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch! Just like you, Kim!
Kim, you and the “far left” on here have always been in total agreement.
NYCpsp stated “Those who claim to be “far left” on here were happy to have Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and are clearly big fans like you are.”
Well, I’m the one who claimed to be far left here. You are completely wrong with that statement.
Duane, she wasn’t referring to you. You know NYCPSP and Dienne have a long-running contention.
Diane,
You are right, but I also call out everyone who had a chance in 2016 to vote for a Democrat to fill an open Supreme Court seat that would immediately change the Supreme Court from a conservative court to one where RBG led a MAJORITY of justices on the left.
It is very rare that it is a known fact that with an open seat and a court evenly divided 4-4, a presidential election will have an immediate, direct consequence on the court.
Those who felt their “priorities” would be best served by preventing a Democrat from filling an open seat got what they wanted. I have no idea what they achieved except making it easier for the right wing to seize more power, but they certainly did take a stand to prevent a Democrat from filling that open seat that would have changed everything. That was not a priority for them.
And, before someone posts this, it is an indisputable fact that if RBG had retired in 2014 and was replaced with another liberal justice, the right wing justices would still control the Supreme Court in 2016. It is an indisputable fact that whether it was RBG or her replacement did not change the reality that the election of 2016 was about a Supreme Court that had been controlled by the right for many years and suddenly had an empty seat with a 4-4 split.
It is an indisputable fact that the 2016 vote determined who would fill that open seat. If a Democrat won the presidency, that open seat would be filled with a justice who would join RBG (or her successor) in leading a 5-4 majority that wasn’t far right!
If a Republican won the presidency, that open seat would be filled with a justice who would keep RBG (or her successor) from having any power.
Some folks decided their goals would best be served by PREVENTING a Democrat from filling that open seat! They should just own it. They voted because the outcome we have now did not bother them as much as having a Democratic president instead of Trump.
They should own it.
What bothers me is when they scapegoat RBG for the choice they made! We are supposed to believe the absurdity that what justified their vote was RBG not stepping down. We are supposed to believe what is clearly a blatant lie that if the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 and there was an open seat for the next president to fill, they would have WANTED a Democrat to fill that seat if some other justice and not RBG was on the court.
That argument makes them sound even closer to the right wing! We are supposed to believe some absurdity that they would have voted for a Democrat as long as they were assured that any 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court did NOT have RBG leading it but had some weaker and more inexperienced justice instead! Anyone believe them?
It is an indisputable fact that they voted to keep the right wing Supreme Court because having a right wing Supreme Court did not bother them nearly as much as they were bothered by having a Democrat as presidents. They are the ones who should be happy because they got exactly the outcome they preferred. And my point is that those feelings are exactly the same as those on the far right have!
The far right is far more bothered by having a Democrat as president than having a far right Supreme Court! And they are grateful that some people who identify as far left help them achieve their preference!
Not often the choice is so clear but in 2016 it was. Some people did not care if the Supreme Court remained in far right hands, and they felt their priorities would be best served by preventing a Democrat from becoming president. Does it matter whether they claim to be far left or far right? They agree on that very important point and their interests directly aligned. Of course, the joke on the far left is that the far right’s interests were greatly served! And what did the far left get? Not one thing except the higher likelihood that expressing their views in the future may be illegal.
Nonetheless, RBG knew she was sick with advanced cancer. She should have stepped down in 2014. She was greedy and enjoyed the power and adulation. She gambled and the whole country lost.
Duane,
I apologize if I missed your strong criticism of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch here. I saw a lot of posts from others that directly criticized them and the danger they represent, but I probably missed when you expressed that view here.
Diane, I don’t dispute that RBG gambled and the country lost. But the country had already lost 4 years before we knew if RBG would win or lose her bet.
The country had already lost because of a choice whose outcome was certain. In 2016, the folks who voted against the Democrat didn’t “gamble”. They CHOSE. There was an open seat and the Supreme Court was tied 4-4. And some voters chose to prevent a Democrat from filling that open seat with a progressive justice to create a progressive majority on the Supreme Court.
It would have been a “gamble” if there were no vacant seats. But there was an open seat when the Court was divided 4-4. There was nothing to bet on. It was an absolute certainty that the winner of the election would choose who to fill the seat that would determine the direction of the Supreme Court.
I have no idea why some folks on the left chose to help those on the right achieve their goal of keeping the Supreme Court controlled by the right wing by preventing a Democratic president from filling that empty seat.
If the Supreme Court continuing to be a force for the right wing agenda wasn’t important to them in 2016, either they now believe that it is important, or they still believe it isn’t very important. If it is the latter, I wouldn’t expect them to criticize Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Violence and social change have often gone together. The knife-wielding ladies who filleted fish in Paris were not acting in the best moral light when they stormed the palace at Versailles. Striking miners who would sabotage the mining machinery or threaten strikebreakers were not interested in whether anyone saw them i a good light.
When Henry Aaron was nearing Babe Ruth’s Homerun record, he received multiple death threats. Public figures always arouse the people who live either on the fringes of society or on the mental fringes of reality.
Of course people on this blog do not approve of violence. I bet most of them understand where it comes from, however. Where do yu thnk violence comes from?
Trump wanted to order the military, the police, and the border patrol to shoot BLM protestors and innocent asylum seekers. This didn’t happen only because his own people (Kirstjen Nielsen, Mark Milley, Mark Esper, Bill Barr, and others) refused to go along. So, yeah, we know where this stuff comes from. It comes from the fear of the Other on the part of criminal old white supremacist men. So what happens when someone not as stupid and ignorant as Trump but with the same views holds the office? That person will have his yes men and women, his fascist facilitators and do-bees firmly in place–his Speers and Eichmanns and Roland Freislers. Note that Barr initially tried to compromise with Trump by fielding his own Putinesque little green men against BLM protestors but finally drew the line.
There’s a lesson from history in this. Unfortunately, I suspect that the lesson that the next Repugnican Party standard-bearer will learn is to get those people solidly in place first. The Enablers.
I say “wanted to order.” He told his people to do these things and shouted at them and called them liars and stupid and cowards and useless when they told him that they couldn’t.
Thank you, Diane, for your impassioned, eloquent, reasoned defenses of women’s reproductive rights and of the people of Ukraine. Much love to you and yours.
This Republican Party does not acknowledge shame. Justice, and I cringe when I give this title, Thomas has said in speeches that the conservative agenda requires effort by any means that obviously includes giving his wife unfettered access to the Supreme Court. Trump can grab ’em, Cavanaugh can chug ’em, and Meadow’s can love the idea of insurrection, but none of this matters. Trump didn’t just shoot somebody on 5th Av., he handed out the ammunition to his buddies. These folks will probably advocate banning dictionaries until they can erase the word perjury from the Ps.
I’ve perused the comments on this blog a few hundred times, and it’s obvious that few people here ever access news and opinion sources that don’t reinforce their existing left-wing opinions. So they’re not not even aware of other perspectives on issues like Roe vs. Wade. For anyone who is open to a different perspective, this short essay is quite informative (BTW, I take the European position on abortion: full access for the first trimester or so, with restrictions afterward).
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/why-roe-was-not-robust.php
“I’ve perused the comments on this blog a few hundred times,”
Well, some of us, over the years, have commented tens of thousands of times, which indicates that we give a thorough reading to what is written here. And some of us make a point to read the many sides of the issues being discussed, so no we, as an amalgam of responders, don’t look to “reinforce their existing left-wing opinions.”
I’ve said for many years, since the last century that for the most part teachers are quite conservative in their thinking. So much so that, unfortunately most are Go Along to Get Along (GAGA) types who have implemented malpractices such as the standards and testing malpractices that harm ALL students. I wouldn’t consider GAGA teachers to be left wing. Au contraire!
(BTW, I take the rationo-logical non-religious position on abortion: It’s not my say in what a woman does with her life. It’s none of my business as a male except if the woman involved is in a long-term relationship with me, married or otherwise. Even then I can only give my thoughts and concerns as it is her decision, plain and simple. For every other woman my opinion is meaningless/worthless.)
But, hey keep on reading and commenting here as you may learn a bit more about the teaching and learning process.
“Well, some of us, over the years, have commented tens of thousands of times”
Some of us have done it under a single post!
you are wrong about the degree to which i am informed about positions contrary to my own. i make a point of it. i would not be surprised if you were wrong about many others posting here.
“full access…” As long as GOP politicians legislate positions different than the one Kim claims to own, whether Kim is lying or not in the matter, is irrelevant.
We know, as truth, that GOP SCOTUS jurists deceive. It’s a fact, not an “alternative fact.”
it’s obvious that few people here ever access news and opinion sources that don’t reinforce their existing left-wing opinions
It’s obvious that you make unwarranted assumptions. I, for one, routinely read across the political spectrum. I want to know what the other side is thinking. It’s important and useful. And I suspect that others here do the same.
I assure you, Ms. Fischer, that Jewish Space Laser Commander Ravitch requires us all to familiarize ourselves with the ideas and tactics of the enemy. Mazel Tough!
I’m with you in all things, Ms. Ravitch, but can’t they avoid the plagiarism charge by saying they have rethought their position, or didn’t consider this or that aspect of the law? This is an honest question on my part.
________________________________
They didn’t plagiarize. When asked if they would seek to overturn Roe v Wade, they both said it was settled precedent. It would have been honest to say, “ I have not decided,” or “a case will certainly come before the Court, and I want to hear the arguments before reaching a decision.” As Trump often said, he picked nominees for the Supreme Court with the intention of overturning Roe. He knew what they would do.
Margaret,
Your comment made me think of something. Couldn’t those Justices say they have experienced a Ravitch Conversion: they have changed their minds on a topic they had strong opinions on before?
Kelly,
You are a wonderfully hopeful optimist. None of the Justices had a sudden conversion and turned against abortion. They were chosen by Trump from a carefully selected list compiled by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. No one on the list was pro-Roe v Wade. Trump promised that he would choose justices to overturn Roe. He didn’t need to ask them. They had already been vetted by the Federalist Society.
People like Kelly look for ways to lie /deceive. It’s a characteristic of the right wing.
Kelly Johnson,
You are right. Which is why all Republicans must join the Democrats in demanding that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch answer questions under oath to explain their “conversion”. If they plead the fifth because they do not want to self-incriminate themselves, they committed perjury.
Obviously if those justices did not knowingly commit perjury they would have no worries about self-incrimating themselves about the perjury they committed.
If they agree to testify under oath, then the jury is still out whether they committed perjury.
The justices can resign instead of testifying under oath. If they do neither, they should be impeached. Kavanaugh himself would agree, since he was instrumental in facilitating the impeachment of a president on similar grounds.
And like the president, once they are out of office, their only punishment for their perjury will be that their law licenses are revoked.
This would be great, but all we have learned since January 6th is the politicians in all three branches go out of their way to protect one another to avoid backlash.
I am confused. This post addresses perjury NOT plagiarism, which is what you probably meant to type, Margaret.
Plagiary
Yes. But we all do that from time to time in posts. It’s so frustrating. I hit the Send button and then see the egregious typo or outright error. LOL.
🤥🤥👖🔛🔥
yup
I’m sure if a regular folks lied under oath we’d be in trouble. However, Congress and the legal system can’t (or won’t) do anything about a seditious ex-president and his lackeys and lickspittles so the justices are likely off the hook too.
We have two systems of law in the U.S., one for the wealthy and powerful and another entirely for the rest of us. That’s clear enough from the career of Don the Con, The Teflon Don 2.0, aka Don Cheeto “Littlefingers” Trumpbalone and the rest of the Trump Crime Family.
You got it, Bob.
Yes they lied, but isn’t that what the person that nominated them did everyday of his presidency and everyday since and nothing has happened.
Nothing. A long history of crime, up to and including treason, and nothing happens to him. The Teflon Don.
His intentional deception about Roe V. Wade wasn’t the only time Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings.
Kavanaugh said:
“That yearbook reference [Renate Alumnius] was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
Bill Clinton was disbarred from practicing in front of the Supreme Court for perjury in a civil trial — which Ken Starr’s office claimed included Clinton using a definition of “sexual relations” that was common in the 1950s/60s where “having sex”, “sexual relations” and “going all the way” did not include kissing, heavy petting, or oral sex.
Brett Kavanaugh was Ken Starr’s right hand man and was complicit in the right wing claims that it is perjury to answer questions under oath with an intent to deceive, and therefore Clinton’s definition of “sexual relations” was still perjury because it was deceptive.
So it would clearly be sweet justice for Kavanaugh to face Supreme Court disbarment — forced resignation as a Justice – for using his own definition of the terms “settled precedent” and answering questions under oath with an intent to deceive.
It would be even more sweet justice if Kavanaugh was prosecuted for the perjury that is easy to prove by subpoenaing every boy who was part of the Renate club and have them testify under oath that the many Renate references those boys made throughout the yearbook were “intended to show affection, and she was one of us” (when this young woman was barely friends with Kavanaugh’s group). And to explain how multiple innuendoes intended to smear a girl’s sexual reputation are “not related to sex”.
Kavanaugh’s defense can only be based on what he claims his own meaning of the word “sex” is.
The man is no stranger to being a perjurer. And that is true even without his likely lies about Blasey Ford. His lied about Renate and he lied about Roe. He should resign right now.
This Renate Alumnus thing was and is really disgusting. What horrible young men.
The Alito decision is a revolutionary document, and it was meant to be. Alito knew exactly what he was doing. The closest parallel I can think of is Luther’s 95 Theses. No, this was not just about indulgences. It was about the power of the Pope, about freedom of individual conscience, about grace versus works. It led to centuries of bloody battles throughout Europe, to an overturning of the existing order, and arguably to the emergence of the modern nation state, to the spread of learning, and to the transition from the medieval world to the modern one. And no, the Alito decision is not just about abortion. It is about throwing out a huge body of implicit rights. There is no explicit Constitutional or historical (taking the long view that Alito takes) protection for the right of women to wear pants, to take a silly example. This document destroys rights and empowers the coercive state. It is like the Enabling Act of 1933 in that respect. And many of the pundits and politicians writing and speaking about the decision don’t seem to get that. How revolutionary it is, how disturbing and dangerous, how much of a threat to democracy and liberty this decision actually poses. Oh, yes, some folks are saying, well, this could affect gay marriage, too. But it’s even more fundamental than abortion and gay marriage. It’s about implied, fundamental liberties deriving from natural law verses the powerful, coercive state’s ability to use its monopoly on violence to dictate behavior generally.
I suspect that a lot of those pundits and politicians haven’t even read it. It’s 98 pages of dense legal argument (in both senses of the word “dense”).
You are right. The Alito decision sweeps away all precedent.
If it is not explicit in the Constitution, that right does not exist.
Does the Constitution say that a corporation is a person?
Exactly, Diane!!!
And even as it overthrows all precedent related to implicit rights, it becomes precedent for enabling states to trash those rights and substitute for them its own coercive power. The power of the rich minority to impose its will through state violence because those protections once provided by the legal system have been swept away.
Alito wrote his decision in the face of Sotomayor’s pointed question suggesting that any decision about the beginning of life is a religious decision. How can anyone avoid her point? Each person is under obligation to decide when life begins as it relates to their conscience. If we cannot make this decision, we are not protected by the First Amendment any longer.
I respectfully (and I really mean that) have to disagree, Roy. I think that empirical evidence has to weigh heavily in our decisions about such matters. As a result of Alito’s decision, women will die, and women and their allies will go to prison, and women of color and poor women will bear great burdens, and an illicit trade in abortifacients will develop, with the criminal concomitants of such illegal trade; and many other evils will ensue. So, there is a LOT of empirical social science that bears on this issue of the legality of abortion. And the question of when a developing being has the moral and legal rights of any other human need not be a religious one, though it is certainly a moral and ethical one, and that one, too, is subject to a lot of applicable empirical evidence. Obviously, some skin cells growing in a petri dish are alive, but they don’t have rights. I think that a good argument can be made that rights can only be conferred upon entities to which things matter.
On the more general point, there are many of us who think that the evidence is overwhelming that religion is as much a deterrent to clear ethical thinking as it as a spur or vehicle for such thinking. Rivers of blood caused by religious agitation and imposition throughout history provide warrant for the belief that religiosity often doesn’t result in ethical decision making but, in fact, has precisely the opposite effect, often tragically and ironically. I cannot make any rational sense of Sotomayor’s assertion unless she means to define “religious decisions” as one’s based on shaky evidence or no evidence at all. Which raises a real question that I have: why would people think that they are particularly warranted in having beliefs for which they have little or not evidence?
In other words, I think that being an entity to which moral questions apply requires being a subjectivity capable of consciousness about actions mattering to it, him, her, or whatever. I’m not saying that when this is the case is easy to discern, but I am asserting that this is so. But one thing I am clear about: this is not necessarily a religious question.
Let me try to spell that out more clearly. In the oral arguments in the Dobbs case, Justice Sotomayor made the comment that the question of which human life begins is a religious one. I respectively have to disagree with her, for two reasons. First, the question that should be at issue is not whether we are talking about human life in the broadest sense. A bunch of human skin cells growing in a Petri dish is both human and life, but it is not a moral subject. Second, I think that the answer to the question of when an entity is a moral subject has to be, “whenever it is a subjectivity capable of consciousness of whether something matters to it.” So, a salad plate is not a moral subject because it is not a subjectivity to which its condition matters. To put this in Heidegger’s formulation, it is not “a being to whom in its being its being is in question.” And this doesn’t seem to me to be a religious question but an ethical one to which empirical evidence applies as warrants.
Well, Bob, I do not see in your definition how we can consider a new born baby a human being. How does that baby become a human being 1 minute after leaving the mother?
In any case, I think the cleanest definition is that a baby in the uterus is “fair” game for abortion, regardless of age, but once the baby is out, it has all the rights of a human being.
Clearly, what we do to a newborn baby matters to that baby.
How about one or 10 minutes before it’s born?
Definitely. According to the criteria I am suggesting, the being is a moral agent when it is a subjectivity to which what is done to it matters to it. I think that the precautionary principle applies and that we would have to err on the side of saying, yes, this is likely so.
And it is likely so after the point of viability that became the criterion after Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950
Here, the conclusion of that study:
A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings. Moreover, “objective signs” for the mobilization of the GNW circuits are being detected in awake infants at the level of the prefrontal cortex in sensory processing, in responses to novelty and to speech and in social interaction. Yet, its capacities for internal manipulations in working memory are reduced, it is unreflective, present oriented and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness (7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70).
The preterm infant ex utero may open its eyes and establish a minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. The connections with the GNW circuits are not yet fully established. Our view is that it has reached only a lower level of minimal consciousness analogous (though, of course, not identical) to that of a rat/mouse (7,9). A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed (71) and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases (72) as indicated by deficient executive functions (73). Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged (74,75).
So, the question is about when an entity is a moral subject. And note that my suggestion toward an answer to that question did not mention its being able to formulate what matters to it in language.
Bob: Thanks for wasting so much ink on my comment. I rarely consider my opinion worth that much. I was trying to speak rather narrowly, to point out that the Alito opinion seems to undermine religious freedom by using a particular religious point of view to define life.
As for my own view of life, it is informed mostly by science that I accept. Like you describe in the arguments you present, I go through the things I know about life in general and about human life in particular to arrive a the best ethical position. I also feel that the representatives of the people need to do the same thing, taking these constant divisive squabbles out of the court and into the legislature. National policies describing good general principles that govern the doctor–citizen–patient relationship need to guard the privacy of this relationship, lest one person find means to tyrannize another as a part of this relationship.
Put another way, we need legislative compromise where there has been division.
good luck with that! legislative opinions on abortion in the individual states will resemble those on slavery only with more in favor of enslaving women than african americans.
If I was a journalist, I’d spend a month or so putting together a photo album showing the people who serve the households of these conservative judges and politicians, like Kavanaugh or Ted Cruz.
Thanks for your wise, reasoned response, Roy. In part I was responding to you (and to Dr. Wierdl) and in part attempting to articulate my own understanding of this important issue.
Mary is correct to make the parallel.
Women who allow themselves to be subjugated do so because politicized religion is used to manipulate them.
But hey, at least we won’t have to pay income taxes anymore …
Alito Bit Of History Repeated (ABOHR?) …
the history of the Old World we thought we left behind …
How the Religious Right Switched from Organization against Segregation to Organization against Abortion
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-abortion-history-the-right-doesn-t-mention/ar-AAX7ufq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a679fa7a0c5c46a4c7dd3c6acf3f1936