Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Reply to cancel draft comment disclosed Facing Wade There is a flood of anger on the left. While many are calling for new laws to be marched and passed, some majority judges are focusing on alleged “lying oaths” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, especially Judges Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Neil Gorsush. In fact, they did not lie about Roe’s testimony as evidence. The offer of false testimony is absolutely nonsense.

A draft opinion written by Judge Alito states: “We accept it قليه And Casey Should be ignored. “It is time to pay attention to the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s electorate.”

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., NY) stated that some conservative judges “The US Senate has been lied to“Senator Susan Collins (R., Me.) Was publicly convicted What he claimed were incorrect or misleading answers about them قليه By Judge Alito and Kavanagh.

No less the legal personality of Stephen Colbert Announced They knew that if they were honest, they would not find it. So they lied, which I think is false testimony. But what do I know? “I am not a judge of the Supreme Court, I am not a liar enough.”

In recent meetings, some of us have done just that He criticized the members of the Democrats To request a guarantee on how candidates will vote on specific cases or issues. However, both the Democratic and Republican candidates have largely adhered to their outspoken answers. قليه And other cases for refusing to fulfill such obligations. There will be, as Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously insistedNo predictions, no hints

The problem is that politicians often point to a selective auditory attention problem: they hear what they want to hear. In fact, approval sessions are highly designed for both parties. Each senator seeks to retain a thirty-second clip showing him securing guarantees or throwing a nominee in the trash.

For elected senators such as Senator Collins, it is essential to have an answer that supports the claim that a candidate is unlikely to be disqualified despite seemingly conflicting philosophical judicial views. Facing Wade And Parenting vs. Casey.

It is noteworthy, however, that these same senators supported the Ginsburg Act, which is often cited for refusing to make promises or make predictions about votes. In fact, I have a long time Critic of the law Because it is used to refuse to discuss judicial philosophy. Candidates, therefore, now state only the basics of judging without saying anything fundamental.

Most people who say “false oath” do not mention the language of a particular false oath.

Take Alito Many of us said when Alito got nominated that he was probably against logic قليه. Moreover, in 1985, Alito, as a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, wrote that the constitution did not have the right to protect against abortion.

However, appearances had to be observed.

The late Senator Arlene Specter (Arlene Specter) asked him if he agreed with the statement today, and Alito unprofessionally replied in the affirmative. He first repeated the facts (noting that he was a lawyer at the Ministry of Justice at the time) and then said, “If this were to happen to me today. The first question is the one we have been discussing and that is it Staring at the decision. “And if the analysis goes beyond that, I will ask it with an open mind.”

This says absolutely nothing but how each jurist deals with the subject of history. You start with the stare decisis benchmark and the preference for record keeping. Then you approach the opposite question with an “open mind”.

When Senator Dick the camera (D., IL.) Pressed him whether قليه Alito reiterated that “the law has been settled”:

“Against Wade An important record is the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it has been in the books for a long time. It has been challenged on several occasions. And I discussed them yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that decision – sometimes by nature. Sometimes, in CaseyAccording to Staring at the decision. And I believe that when a decision is challenged and reaffirmed, it reinforces its value. Staring at the decision… ”

Which, of course, made the decision in 1973, a long time ago. Police vs. Ferguson It was in the books for 58 years before it was overthrown in 1958.

He never committed to keeping Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind about such things.

Then came Gorsuch.

I Gorsch testified at the court hearing And he is widely regarded as one قليه Suspicious, he wrote a book stating that “the deliberate taking of human lives by private individuals is always wrong.”

When asked about the statement, Gorsush replied: “The senator, as the book explains, the US Supreme Court in Facing Wade The fetus is not a person for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When the camera asked him if he would accept it, Gorsush stated another fact: “This is the law of the land. “I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted this قليه History has been established. It is almost as shocking as to say that he agrees to a Supreme Court in Washington. Similarly, the then senator, Al Franken, asked Gorsush if he had watched. قليه As the “Law of Settlement”. Again, this is like asking for a high court location. “This is a completely settled law,” Gorsuch said.

Then came Kavanagh.

Cavanaugh also made the point in a phone call قليه “Important record” and given that the court is trying to preserve the record. When Senator Diane Feinstein (D., California) came under pressure, he reiterated that such cases were “a matter of principle.” Staring at the decision“And” one of the most important things to consider Facing Wade This, as you know, has been emphasized many times over the last 45 years, and most importantly, most importantly, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey In 1992. “

Kavanagh managed to repeat nothing but verbal refutations.

The only exception to this unspoken pattern of confirmation was Bart. At the time, I wrote that it was Bart Refreshingly and surprisingly honest About judicial philosophy and its approach. In particular, he denied that Roe was a “wonderful record.” Bart said the term “definition[s] Cases that have been resolved so well that no political actor or individual is seriously pushing for their dismissal. And I answer a lot of questions about that قليهWhich I think reflects قليه “It does not fall into this category.” (Judge Katanji Brown Jackson He took the same position Against قليه As above history.).

What is remarkable about these allegations that the judges have lied about is that most of these critics have insisted in their affirmation that they are clearly opposed to them. قليه. Nothing they said changed any view of their judicial philosophy as hostile to logic. قليه

It is noteworthy that liberal candidates have used the same language in such cases District of Columbia v. Heller, Protection of gun rights. They acknowledge that this is a record, but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. In fact, they voted to limit or eliminate past cases that they disagree with. No one demanded the prosecution of false testimony and did not condemn them as liars.

None of this is likely to be relevant in today’s echo news, especially as the midterm elections approach. That is why Bismarck warned that “people never lie so much as after hunting, during war or before elections.”

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.