I think the saddest thing is how lying under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing doesn’t revoke the confirmation.
Basically Kavanaugh did what everyone said he would and he overturned US v Nixon even though he lied about it during his confirmation even though before he argued repeatedly it was a bad decision. So either he lied or he miraculously changed his beliefs for the duration of the Senate hearing.
I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent supreme court, if politicians can have guarantees as to how specific cases are decided?
Appreciate your moral courage in going against the grain on HN. Not as sad, but still deeply sad that a site that prohibits ideological battle in its guidelines has become powerless to stop Twittermobbing on here.
I'm normally one who will defend HN as being a haven for calm, rational disagreement, but these Supreme Court ruling discussions are really bad.
Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads.
But if one really does believe the rulings are that bad and that they portend very bad things to come then a person should say as much. I can calmly and rationally say that these decisions are terrible. It’s not, in my opinion, hyperbole for me to say so. I could be wrong in my assessment but I don’t think I am.
For the first time in American history a select group of people are immune from the law as long as the acts occur while carrying out their jobs. That’s a big deal. I can see that soon someone will claim immunity because they carried out an order of the President and their immunity extends to those carrying out “official acts” of the President.
I'm genuinely curious--what should the senate be voting for/against when they confirm a supreme court justice, if not how'd they rule on certain topics?
How about their qualifications for the posting? I'm not sure I'd want to appoint anyone to a judgeship who already knows how they'd pass judgement on a case that's not before them. Otherwise what's the point of a hearing or a trial?
Nominees for the supreme court usually have already been judges and written legal opinions. A senator could say "I read the facts of [some past ruling], and I disagree with the ruling, and therefore doubt their competency to be on the supreme court."
Additionally, supreme court nominees are not selected at random--it's no accident that conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Nominees are selected by the president because the president thinks they'll like the way the nominee would rule in the future.
Qualified judges have a broad spectrum of opinions. When faced with the question, "should _this_ person have a lifetime supreme court appointment," I don't see how a senator could avoid considering how a nominee might rule in the future.
An "independent supreme court" historically means "independent from the executive", as prior to the formation of the United States government under the constitution, judiciaries were part of the executive.
It does not mean that Congress can't have political qualifications for justices, and in fact George Washington had a failed nomination because his nominee was politically unpopular.
Since that site includes a very very small quote out of context, here's a link to the actual transcript of the hearing [0].
> So I think the first thing that makes a good judge is independence, not being swayed by political or public pressure. That takes some backbone. That takes some judicial fortitude.
> The great moments in American judicial history, the judges had backbone and independence. You think about Youngstown Steel. You think about, for example, Brown v. Board of Education, where the Court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforced the promise of the Constitution.
> You think about United States v. Nixon, which I have identified as one of the greatest moments in American judicial history, where Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon, brought the Court together in a unanimous decision to order President Nixon, in response to a criminal trial subpoena, to disclose information. Those great moments of independence and unanimity are important.
Kavanaugh "lied" because in 1999, he criticized an aspect of the Nixon ruling but 19 years later, in a response to a softball question from a Republican senator, called it "one of the greatest moments in American judicial history", repeating what he wrote in 2016?
That site said he praised the decision. That's a far cry from lying under oath that he wouldn't repeal it. Is there anything more specific that he said?
Well he previously had said it was a very wrong decision, then praised it to get confirmed & then pretty quickly overturned it. You’d have to squint really hard to see the testimony as honest.
> [Kavanaugh] lied about it during his confirmation
Kavanaugh said Roe was "entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis" and similar remarks. But that still leaves it in a category that can and has been overturned by past courts. Here are a few such examples where they overturned settled precedents entitled to deference under the principles of stare decisis: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturn...
Once you know that such rulings can and have been overturned before, you can see that he never once said anything at all like "I won't (or can't) overturn Roe" in his comments. You can find his comments in full here:
You can say that this makes his comments misleading to people who don't realize that stare decisis doesn't mean that SCOTUS can't or won't overturn a past ruling, but the fact that "everyone said he would" overturn Roe really cuts against that his statements actually mislead anyone.
Basically Kavanaugh did what everyone said he would and he overturned US v Nixon even though he lied about it during his confirmation even though before he argued repeatedly it was a bad decision. So either he lied or he miraculously changed his beliefs for the duration of the Senate hearing.
https://www.peoplefor.org/press-releases/fact-check-kavanaug...