I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don’t have standing to bring the case.
However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.
So, there might be reason to be hopeful.
However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.
You expect Chief Justice Robert’s Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They’d vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!
They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don’t have standing to bring the case.
However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.
So, there might be reason to be hopeful.
However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.
Man, in a functioning system, there would be no “should,” but “MUST,” and with criminal charges.
You expect Chief Justice Robert’s Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They’d vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!
Is that possible tho? Is there a scenario where it would be possible to throw the justices that did in fact lie under oat?
They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
Lol
Came here to point all of this out, thank you for saving me the time! Updooted!