Perjury is a crime, is it not, even for Supreme Court nominees?

[John Smith]

Seems pretty clear to me that Trump's three appointees outright lied under oath in their hearings.

Am I wrong?

[LeeG]

you are wrong. But the intention to deceive was the same. I wonder if Susan Collins can appear in public in her home state anymore.

[webishop14]

Only very rarely have Susan Collins' concerns matched her voting record. I'd be very concerned about her political future.

[Ted Hoppe]

Only very rarely have Susan Collins' concerns matched her voting record. I'd be very concerned about her political future.

Her current term ends on January 3, 2027. She will be 74. Collins does not need to worry about a thing as there is a lot that can happen in the years to come.

In 2018 Collins net worth was 4 million. Today she is worth 45 million dollars. In 4 more years she could be worth 100 million dollars.

[skuthorp]

as always, follow the money……………….

[Tom Montgomery]

.
They would have to be impeached. Good luck with that.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

.
They would have to be impeached. Good luck with that.

It can be done. The late Ninoy Aquino did it, at fairly huge cost, politically, to get rid of a Chief Justice who had been parachuted in by the outgoing President in a « midnight appointment » with a clear brief to protect her and her other appointments.

The hearings were brutal and Aquino had to use lots of political capital, but he did get it done.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
As the current congress is constituted a conviction in an impeachment trial is next to impossible. I do not believe in sparkly unicorns.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

.
As the current congress is constituted a conviction in an impeachment trial is next to impossible. I do not believe in sparkly unicorns.

Agreed. I was just saying that in an almost identical Constitution, it has been done

But as I was saying just now in another place, Joe Biden wanted to be like FDR and he’s got the far right radio shock jocks gunning for him along with a hostile Supreme Court but he hasn’t got FDR’s thumping majority in either house.

[John Smith]

you are wrong. But the intention to deceive was the same. I wonder if Susan Collins can appear in public in her home state anymore.

What's the difference between 'intending to deceive' and 'lying'?

[John Smith]

.
As the current congress is constituted a conviction in an impeachment trial is next to impossible. I do not believe in sparkly unicorns.

But those who bring impeachment might be seen as heroic.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

They are, however, lying sacks of excrement.

[LeeG]

What's the difference between 'intending to deceive' and 'lying'?

“Roe v Wade is precedent” vs “I will not vote to overturn Roe”. John, you really are stuck on this lying thing when one can construct a sentence a hundred ways with conditional or ambiguous statements that the listener can infer intended erroneous meaning without overtly lying.

[Canoeyawl]

Has anyone put together the Kavanaugh lies about the woman he tried to rape yet???
Beer is really not a good excuse for rape
He's a liar, plain and clear and that has worked to get him into his current seat.
Impeaching a justice now is not going to change the ruling....

[Too Little Time]

Seems pretty clear to me that Trump's three appointees outright lied under oath in their hearings.

Am I wrong?

You might suggest impeachment to your people in Congress. That appears to be a proper legal path.

[CWSmith]

It depends what lies you are referring to.

It is much easier to prove lies about the past than it is about future intentions. In the latter case, they just say, "I changed my mind." and it's done.

[David G]

“Roe v Wade is precedent” vs “I will not vote to overturn Roe”. John, you really are stuck on this lying thing when one can construct a sentence a hundred ways with conditional or ambiguous statements that the listener can infer intended erroneous meaning without overtly lying.

Yes, this. The public lying... the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine... etc. are important. But they are symptoms. You can try to address them, but they're not going to go away until we adopt policies that reel in the wealth/income inequities. Tax policies are the first step. Union organizing and the power of collective bargaining is a good step. And suchlike.

If this is the only issue that interests you, then sure... work on it. But know that you've got things in the wrong order, and therefore you will largely be pizzing into the wind.

[Keith Wilson]

None of them are fools, and all of them are experienced lawyers. They know very well how to give a vague-enough answer to a question that deceives, or at least muddles the issue, without coming at all close to the legal definition of perjury. There's absolutely no hope of any legal consequences.

[Tom Montgomery]

^
This.

[LeeG]

yup.

[Canoez]

Seems pretty clear to me that Trump's three appointees outright lied under oath in their hearings.

Am I wrong?

”They changed their minds since they were confirmed.”

[John Smith]

“Roe v Wade is precedent” vs “I will not vote to overturn Roe”. John, you really are stuck on this lying thing when one can construct a sentence a hundred ways with conditional or ambiguous statements that the listener can infer intended erroneous meaning without overtly lying.

Guilty as charged. Lying is killing our country. Is it not?

I also think I know how Galileo felt.

[John Smith]

You might suggest impeachment to your people in Congress. That appears to be a proper legal path.

I'm sure that's the path. Might happen if dems hold the house.

[John Smith]

Yes, this. The public lying... the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine... etc. are important. But they are symptoms. You can try to address them, but they're not going to go away until we adopt policies that reel in the wealth/income inequities. Tax policies are the first step. Union organizing and the power of collective bargaining is a good step. And suchlike.

If this is the only issue that interests you, then sure... work on it. But know that you've got things in the wrong order, and therefore you will largely be pizzing into the wind.

How on earth is a car dealer turning back an odometer worse than deliberately misinforming voters or lying to congress, except the car dealer may go to jail and the other may get elected.?

[John Smith]

None of them are fools, and all of them are experienced lawyers. They know very well how to give a vague-enough answer to a question that deceives, or at least muddles the issue, without coming at all close to the legal definition of perjury. There's absolutely no hope of any legal consequences.

This is also why, IMO, putting a judge on a bench SHOULD require more than a simple majority.

Legislation should require a simple majority, but not putting any judge on any bench.

[David G]

[Chris Woodward]

Remember, Gorsuch was the result of an outright stolen choice by Obama. Stolen. In the light of day and with much fanfare. And the spineless Dems did nothing. Nothing! Were they even pressured by their constituents? "You Lie!" Nothing. Spineless. You think that they will do anything now?

[Nicholas Carey]

“Roe v Wade is precedent” vs “I will not vote to overturn Roe”. John, you really are stuck on this lying thing when one can construct a sentence a hundred ways with conditional or ambiguous statements that the listener can infer intended erroneous meaning without overtly lying.

Part of the problem with that is that the Congress, rather than acting as the co-equal branch of the government that it is, long ago surrendered that, and defer to the Executive. Hence the rise, beginning with Nixon, of the "Imperial Presidency".

members of the judiciary committee have lacked the gronicles to insist on a straight answer to the question. And the chair of the committee and the senate leadership has lacked the gronicles to compel the answer.

Civil contempt is a tool they seem terrified of using -- if you won't answer the question without dissembling, you can cool your heels at the pleasure of the Senate, in the custody of the Sergeant-At-Arms, until you do so.

[Art Haberland]

seems to me the low hanging fruit is Justice Thomas and his activist wife who used his position on the SCOTUS to try to influence people.

[skuthorp]

The SC is at the heart of the most aggregious 2 decisions before the last 2. Corporations as people, and lying to get elected id free speech.
I cannot see that situation improving at all.

[Osborne Russell]

Seems pretty clear to me that Trump's three appointees outright lied under oath in their hearings.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong.

They had to say what they said, and what they said was true. They could not say what people wanted them to say, so they didn't say it. No lies, no perjury -- a mountainous intent to deceive notwithstanding. Senators at the confirmation hearing, and media idiots, led you to believe that the nominees could be made to say what you wanted to hear, in order to sell advertising time. If anyone defrauded you, it was the Senators and the media.

"Everybody's waiting breathlessly to see if they will deny that Roe is precedent!" No they aren't, because they won't, because they can't. "Well, Gustave, let's remember that we're waiting to see if they say that they will overturn Roe! That's the real question!" No, it isn't, because they won't, because they can't. That's why we're not waiting for it. You are simply and clearly wrong.

So the political posturing, and the advertising for the crap journalism hooks you subliminally and you buy something that you would otherwise not have bought. Who committed fraud? Not the nominees.

Various hired commentators said these things repeatedly, in advance, at the time. Others gave answers that were incorrect. They were allowed to by the media, who tries to pass it off as "hearing from both sides", which is also false. There's only one side.

[Nicholas Carey]

Yes, you're wrong.

They had to say what they said, and what they said was true. They could not say what people wanted them to say, so they didn't say it. No lies, no perjury -- a mountainous intent to deceive notwithstanding.

Lies of omission, and lies of misdirection, remain nonetheless

Lies.

And perjury.

[LeeG]

They’re in the door now. Ready to do God’s work.

[SMARTINSEN]

They’re in the door now. Ready to do God’s work.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Gerarddm]

O please. No way to prove they 'lied'.

This is just wishful thinking.