Those fucking cunts have been working toward this for over 50 years.

45 said straight-up that even if the republicans didn't like him, they still had to vote for him because he could give them what they wanted.
And he fucking did.

It will with me, that's for damned sure.

It's still wrong.

@KKGator I'm told that all's fair in love, politics, and war.

@rainmanjr Yeah, that's all bullshit, too.

Every single one of them needs to grow a fucking vagina and go after those lying sacks of shit.
And I say vagina instead of balls because vaginas are a helluva lot tougher than testicles.

@KKGator Vaginas are amazing.

@KKGator it is a FUCKING SHITSTORM...smfh

During their individual confirmation hearings, they were each specifically asked where they stood on Roe.
Each one of them declared it established law.
In one way or another, they each said they had no intention of overruling it.
They LIED. It's documented.

@KKGator I believe they stated it was judicial precedent, not established law. Regardless, nothing about either of those two things states it can't be undone. Link me to their statement where they say, "I will never vote to overturn Roe v Wade" under oath. Then you might have something. (Even then there are issues of litmus test vs. ability to change their mind.)

@KKGator and there is where the rub is...they STATED(declared, said, mumbled, uttered...whatever), "IT WAS ESTABLISHED LAW"...essentially they said "yup...Roe vs Wade is an established Constitutional Law"...anyone can say that and be truthful...when they said, "THEY HAD NO INTENTION of overruling it"...good luck trying to get them to admit they were LIEING...it cannot be proven what their intent was or was not...any Lawyer would object because that would be pure supposition. Don't get me wrong...I'm TOTALLY on your side but I am being the Devils Advocate and unless someone has a video of them saying "They intend to overturn Roe v Wade at the first opportunity"...we are FUCKED...and Biden won't pack the Court to flip it back...we need better LEGAL MINDS in the Court. That WAS the only security this country had left and as we can all see...IT IS POLITICALLY BIASED.

@phoenixone1 You may have clicked reply on a different comment. We totally agree.

@ChestRockfield ...I did??? ... OK...I don't see it but I will take word for it......you are correct though...we are in agreement. I only hope this wakes up every Democrat and Independent and EVERY WOMAN IN AMERICA to VOTE BLUE...we lose the Senate OR the House and it is CHECKMATE. 2024 is not looking good either...good article in NBC News of how the Governors will have too much power over the State Electors if the Trumpazoids get control of the Swing States...scary

@phoenixone1 Oh, I just assumed because we didn't disagree on anything. When you said you were on my side but playing Devil's Advocate you said the same think I had said, so I thought maybe you meant to reply to someone else??

@ChestRockfield Actually the "Devils Advocate" reply was sent to @KKGator...thats what is showing on my screen also...this was a long Comment and Reply thread and it gets all tangled up at times

@phoenixone1 Oh weird, initially my alert brought me to that comment as a reply to me. I see it says KKGator now.

@ChestRockfield no problemo...let the Chaos reign down.

@phoenixone1 Check it out, it did it to me again... I thought I was going crazy.

@ChestRockfield that's weird. System is having a brain hemorrhage.

They lied to Congress, and the American people, while under oath.
That's perjury, and it doesn't matter who does it.

@KKGator It doesn't 'matter' by your/any claim(s)/wish.
Perhaps you could cite any/all nominees that have been "prosecuted".

@FearlessFly There is documented proof that they lied, under oath.
Lying to Congress is a crine.

Just because it may not have have happened before, does not mean it shouldn't happen now.

How can anyone be okay with this?
How can you be okay with this?

@KKGator I agree, but there may be a Statute of Limitations involved.

Nearly every Democrat voted against confirmation of both Kavenaugh and Barrett , because they thought they were lying along with other reasons.

@glennlab Democrats voted against Trump appointees ?
. . . I'm shocked, truly shocked.

@Alienbeing Maybe for Thomas and Alito, but definitely not for the other 3.

@KKGator "How can you be okay with this?"

You have jumped to this conclusion (perhaps understandably).
(I am not OK with it)
I think/hope this setback will become the impetus for large pro-choice turnouts in Nov. and 2024.

I interpret your OP and your other comments as you think this is "black and white"
"FOR A FACT, . . . ALL LIED"
"they should ALL be subject to impeachment and perjury charges. This needs to happen immediately."
"They LIED. It's documented"'
"They lied to Congress, and the American people, while under oath"

I don't think that "black and white" POV is widely accepted (apart from rank partisanship)

"The burden of proof in instances of potential false statements to Congress is considerable, according to legal experts."
[politico.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]
[supreme.justia.com]
[jonathanturley.org]
[wusa9.com]
[abovethelaw.com]

@KKGator Maybe, I don't know. Congress has its own rules, either way I still agree they should be prosecuted.

. . . stare decisis ? ? ?
REALLY ?

[constitution.congress.gov]

@FearlessFly In general conservative justices folllow stare stare decisis, not always. As I recall at least some of them referred to this during their confirmation hearings.

They are sworn and under oath during their confirmation hearing. Lying to congress is indeed a crime.
18 US Code 1001
[law.cornell.edu]

@glennlab How many nominees have been 'prosecuted' ?

@FearlessFly None, but it is still the law. Just like the KKK law was not enforced for over 100 years, but was dusted off recently and used to prosecute offenders.

@glennlab they can simply say that they were forced to change their opinion because of reinterpretation of what is or is not covered under Constitutional Law...unfortunately it happens with all cases that the SCOTUS agree to hear.

@phoenixone1 I was not arguing the merits of the case, I was simply stating that it was indeed codified that lying to congress or any committee or any subcommittee was a violation of Federal law and punishable by both fine and imprisonment.

@glennlab And while you and I both know they were lying, how do we prove they didn't just change their minds??

@ChestRockfield We don't have to, that is a job for DOJ, WE have to apply pressure for an investigation to be conducted. Letters and phone calls to your Senators and congressmembers.

@glennlab I understand you were merely stating Judicial Law...I was pointing out how they would respond to a charge of LIEING.

@glennlab At this point it's probably better if the decision goes through.

@glennlab come on Glenn...do you really think Merrick Garland would get anywhere? The guy is a SLOTH ...

So, they should get a pass?
There are no more consequences for perjury?

Just because 45 has been able to skate so far, does not mean we should tolerate anyone's perjury under Oath.

If we do that, let's just go ahead and embrace anarchy all the way.