My condolences on your not being able to do your normal name thing.
With that lung capacity? Of course she’s be okay.
You obviously do not understand what you quoted. For example,
Senator Graham asked if Kavanaugh would be open to hearing arguments if a particular case needed to be “revisited.” Kavanaugh said “Of course. I listen to all arguments. You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system.
Kavanaugh explicitly stated under oath that he would be open to hearing arguments revisiting prior cases. And NOWHERE did he or any other justice state that respecting stare decisis meant that they would never overturn precedent.
You want to impeach these justices because they did not “tell the whole truth” during their confirmation hearing? Well, if you do that you can add Sotomayor, Kagan, and every other justice of the last thirty five years, because all of them have expressed similar sentiments about precedent and stare decisis during their confirmation hearings, and every one of them has voted to overturn precedents at some point — and none of them ever pledged not to do that.
If you want to call for the heads of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, I would suggest you first provide evidence of your similar outrage over, for example, Kagan’s and Sotomayor’s votes in Obergefell, another case which overturned precedent.
So… did they just do a really lousy job planning the logistics from the get go, forget that bringing an extra person along, i.e., Tarzan, would require more resources, or both?
With all the extra lung capacity she seems to have, she shouldn’t be having as much trouble as the men.
“A little put out.”
Bleeb is going pretiquing.
Bleeb, I don’t think that’s the safest place for you to be.
“His presence is very strong”
He should change his brand of body wash.
I was addressing your comment, “Sorry to disagree, but Mitch does not have any ‘legal process’ claim for having refused to pass on Obama’s selection.”
As for the rest of your comments, they’re meaningless because NONE of the justices you’re referring to ever committed themselves, under oath or otherwise, to upholding Roe. I doubt this will help much, but it’s useful to note nonetheless:
Columbia University law professor Katherine Franke told the Guardian that even if justices said Roe was “settled law,” “What it means is that that’s a decision from the Supreme Court, and I acknowledge that it exists. But it doesn’t carry any kind of significance beyond that.”
I would also suggest that you review this:
because you seem to have a mistaken notion of what, exactly, they said.