“….but descriptively it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.” I think Barrett gave the most balanced answer. Her answer also prefigured June 24, 2022 when SCOTUS finally overruled Roe vs Wade.
@@purevenus6359 "law of the land" does not imply stern or unchangeable. Even the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, can be amended. The funny thing about that is that it isn't up to SCOTUS to weigh in on that. The whole point is to bypass them. But that's too hard and gives Democrats less of a platform to run on. I guarantee they are overjoyed at the prospect of running for reelection this year on the basis that would-be aborters need them as advocates.
That’s now case law works in the US. Precedent is established unchanging case law in our system. The only thing that can change it is legislation. These justices completely broke basic law principles and sided with their personal feelings and belief systems
These justices said, "these are the rule of the land" and "they follow it". Being justices or judges they are obliged to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court. They cannot say anything against it even if their personal understanding of the law is different because it would be the "contempt of the court". So, for them, it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not you got to obey it. But when they are sitting as a judge, they are obliged to be as fair as possible and judge based on the presented evidence. So, at both times they did their job as they were expected to be. The rest is the interpretation by politicians.
Precedent in law means; Legal precedent means that a decision on a certain principle or question of law has already been made by a court of higher authority, such as an appeal or supreme court. Following such a decision, lower courts defer to, or adhere to, that prior decision in similar cases. If you actually read the leaked opinion, you would see that it explains how Roe v Wade was loose in the treatment of the Constitution. There is no abortion in the Constitution because it is not included as a part of the right to privacy. This means that Roe V Wade was unconstitutional from the get-go.
@@sthubbins4038 no Democrats are the ones going to the dumpster. They will try to make elections about abortion but no no no it is about gas prices and inflation.
This is exactly what many legal scholars would argue. It is very true. There is no, and has never been a right to an abortion. They need to get used to losing. There is no crying in baseball ladies. A red wave has already begun. After tonight and the idiots rioting they are going to lose more support. Then it will be a red tsunami come November. And then we have six years of Republicans making the decisions. How do you like them apples?
RvW demonstrates that when precedence becomes a law unto itself outside of legal writ within the body of legislation or constitution then anything goes.
@Trump's Hair Piece Is Missing this video was not heavily edited in their favor, I assure you. However, I would need to hear more of Gorsuch's commentary to develop a proper interpretation. His comments here definitely suggest he might have upheld it, especially when he affirmed its relevance to the 14th Amendment. If anything, the Constitution would be the only thing to supercede Roe, but he basically agreed they were one and the same. Kavanaugh cleverly indicated that Roe and Casey were "important" but stopped short of saying they were absolute. It's pretty easy for politicians to distance themselves from absolution and certainty, so there are no real surprises here. It was a safe response that pleased the Democrats. Barrett's answer was an absolute woodshedding of Klobuchar's intentionally leading and politically biased questioning. She gives Alito and Thomas a run for their money in her grip of the law.
@Trump's Hair Piece Is Missing or why don't you just show us the quote? None of them ever stated how they would rule on Roe. You're just making things up.
Precedent is synonymous with settled case law. Not figuratively, that is literally what it means. Precedent in a common law system such as ours cannot be overturned. So yes, they lied given they overturned what they stated was precedent. Clearly they didn’t believe it was precedent for whatever delusional reason.
Both sides point fingers at each other while simultaneously accepting that strangers (who they will never ever meet) tell them how to live their lives in every way 😵
What did they imply? They were very clear and direct with answers to the questions asked. Because you're too *stoopud™* and poorly educated to understand on your own, Ill briefly explain... committing to a ruling, before hearing a case, is a violation. Democrats' attempting to compel that opinion, during an appointment hearing, is a violation. The only thing to 'imply' here, is Democrat corruption, in ideological purity testing, for a definitively apolitical position.
“I couldn’t help but notice that everyone who is for abortion, have already been born” -President Ronald Reagan PS. Congratulations from Mexico to all American patriots for this beautiful victory, this is a glorious and delightful development!
The number of abortions will stay the same, if you can’t afford to carry and give birth to a baby, let alone raise it, you will have an abortion regardless. It’s never pretty, but it’s reality sadly. Abortions will just be far less safe now and women will die in great numbers, their lives will be lost senselessly. Certainly not a victory.
It's people that are for the right of women to choose, not for abortion per se. And everyone speaking on the issue has already been born and lived a life of joy and suffering, which is why they can understand the suffering of the woman. A fetus, on the other hand, has no sense of suffering or joy. A being that has no consciousness should not supersede the rights of those that do.
Sure it might be a stretch to cite the 14th amendment in protecting the sanctity of unborn life, but there is not one single line in the constitution that mentions let alone guarantees a right to an abortion
There are plenty of other rights it doesn’t mention. Don’t be a fool. This isn’t about legitimate legal arguments; this is about using disingenuous, contradictory rationale to violate the will of the majority of Americans and impose their extremist religious beliefs on all of us.
@@chrisn.6477 The left keep on bringing up religion, but the right sites the constitution and science. 95% of biologists believe human life begins at conception. Those who would force masks and vaccinations should have no problem using condoms and birth control.
Time to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and return the original meaning of "keep and bear arms" to well-regulated militias, not individual citizens as it was for well over 200 years.
Hey, numbnuts, the right to bear arms is still subject to the laws of the land so long as they do not contradict it, hence the "Well regulated" and "being necessary to the security of a free State" being in there, originally with the intent to make the people acting as the militia be expected to be in good form. Also, 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Know what that means? It means the Justices just acted unconstitutionally in overturning the rights granted by Roe for arbitrary reasons that do nothing to explain the contradiction of why it had been settled at least twice over. I can read too, can you?
Make sure you show all the destruction and violence your side will commit all because they can't tell someone in another state what they can and can't do. And why are you mad? It's just a clump of words.
@@springbloom5940 Yes, they did. Listen to the video. They are dirty liars and they want to force their religion on everyone. I have no respect for these people!
@@Alarik52 precedent doesn't mean settled law. Precedent simply means a landmark decision that deserves to be strongly considered when future, similar cases arise. They all essentially admitted that they understood Roe v Wade was an important precedent, alongside Casey. Never once did they imply or outright say that it wouldn't ever be overturned. They pledged to hear each new case as it came along without bias and without some hidden agenda.
First it was never a right or constituional right. Just like a living wage and healthcare... You cant force peole to pay you somthing or do a service to you or for you thats slavery. Goverment is their to protect your god given rights or what some call human rights already in existence. Not to create them or give them to you...
You really just came out in public and said that...? By your logic, never paying or servicing for medical aid AT ALL because of the sheer compelling that is expected of it is akin to slavery... My good man, you have the right to use your brain, so please use it.
Theses supreme court justices made the decision for women then maybe then they can adopt all the babies that are going to be left at their door steps they have life time jobs they can afford the babies none else can afford.there life. The life time appointees should be ten year since they are using bias tactics.
This isn't a revelation. That is how SCOTUS hearings work and also how SCOTUS works. Meaning that justices do not provide political opinions during hearings and while on the court they have the discretion to overrule, reaffirm, or make precedent. Making precedent is not something justices particularly like to do as much, but that is what Roe v Wade was. It's too bad there aren't recordings from times of plessy v Ferguson before brown v board. I'm sure there would have been a litany of justices stating their support for decisions that they would one day overturn. Citizens don't directly vote for them for a reason. If they did, we might very well still have segregation today.
It’s not a political position, it’s a Supreme Court precedent. Of course they should answer honestly about their view of precedent. Unfortunately, even if they had been honest it wouldn’t have mattered. The majority party has complete say over justices since it’s just a political position at this point.
If your employer found out that you lied during your hiring interview so that you could get the job, you would lose your job. These people lied under oath to get their job.
@@MyerShift7 it’s funny when people use words like “slaughtering” or “murdering” when referencing abortion. The children in Texas were slaughtered. The kids at sandy hook were murdered. You cannot die if you have never been born.
@@bls8959 When conservatives are rounded up, libs are going to be just as petty as you and say things like "Where's the concentration camp? I don't see any concentration camp!"
@@Really250 I respectfully disagree. Look no farther than Amy Vivian Coney Barrett to find the definition of chattel. Based on her reasoning, she should be at home obeying her husband.
Until our society takes care of all the pregnant women and the born children properly, the problem isn't solved. Who will adopt a profoundly malformed or idiot baby or child? Adoptions forever now are only for healthy babies. Search your heart before judging others for having an abortion. Will you step up for those women and babies? Plus what about teaching young men their part? Are we doing that?
@@springbloom5940 ah, so you're a coward and refuse to address the elephant in the room. If you're not going to personally step up to help those women and damaged kids, you're a hypocrite and certainly not a true Christian.
It isn't law. The constitution clearly states that a law guarantees every person has equals rights. When you change the definition of "person" horrible things happen to "persons". This is why Roe v Wade could not be upheld.
how so? biden presidncy was declare illigitiamet by the state of texas, jimmy carter did the exact same thing with elctors who were sent and he chose which ones as vic president and gave it to the demcotrat electors in the past, hillary and many dems called the presidency illigitiamte many times when republicans won now the dems are literlly taking policital prisoners who did the same thing they did in th past... Dems and repubs are knocking people off the ballot for power and siding with corportion to push a coporate communist meger of captilism like china ccp.
@Internet Critic yes it has. 4 of the justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. this is clearly political. its over for the courts and cops in america.
, when I was a kid I believed in Santa Claus and I would have swore to it. But as I got older I looked into it and saw the truth. Just as they probably looked into it and saw the truth. The roe was on very weak ground
... in favor of Partisan hacks like Mitch to appoint people to rule on something the majority did not want, under a President that did not win the support of the people.
@@marioboada7424 the system was set up for and by the ultra wealthy to concentrate power in the hands of the few to erode your rights with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It does work, just not for you.
@@traviscutler9912 I disagree. Based on the prevailing mechanisms at the time wealthy aristocracy didn't need a separation of powers to exert complete control of power. This is an aberration and utter corruption of a system deviced to protect the people not the individual.
@@colbymason8054 They did whatever they felt like and acted on it after being stuffed into the Supreme Court at the behest and foul play of Mitch and Trump you mean.
