3 ms·
It turns out that the justices spoke very carefully and nothing they said precluded them from making a decision like this. Dishonest, yes. Perjury, no.
by Beltiras 4y ago
It turns out that the justices spoke very carefully and nothing they said precluded them from making a decision like this. Dishonest, yes. Perjury, no.
- mattnewton 4y agoIt’s not like perjury is enforceable at that level anymore anyways. I’m not a lawyer but I am not so sure he was even that careful in a legal sense. I think he was mostly saying things to not give a sound byte to opponents who would block his nomination like Bork. The conservatives who backed his nomination know the game and what he was put on the court to rule on, they don’t need to be told again. Enough to wink at it. There isn’t any actual legal teeth there anymore as far as I can tell. Countless examples of presidents, justices, etc walking past perjury charges.
- saghm 4y agoYeah, I certainly wasn't trying to say that they committed a crime or anything; I'm just saying I'm skeptical of the claim that there's no intent to overturn those other cases mentioned just because most of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade didn't explicitly state it at this time.