did the supreme court justices lie?

[aubiefifty 18,248]

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath about their views on Roe v. Wade

Oma Seddiq

Mon, July 11, 2022 at 2:31 PM·3 min read

In this article:

Neil Gorsuch

US Supreme Court justice since 2017

Brett Kavanaugh

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Chuck Schumer

American politician

Ted Lieu

American politician

Joe Manchin

United States Senator from West Virginia

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images; Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Ocasio-Cortez called on Senate Democrats to say whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied.

The congresswoman and Rep. Ted Lieu wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Ocasio-Cortez has been highly critical of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn abortion rights.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urged Senate Democratic leadership to take a position on whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied to senators about their views on Roe v. Wade during their Supreme Court confirmation processes.

The New York Democrat, along with fellow Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Friday demanding he address the matter.

"We request that the Senate make its position clear on whether Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath during their confirmation hearings," the lawmakers wrote in the letter. "We must call out their actions for what they were before the moment passes, so that we can prevent such a mendacious denigration of our fundamental rights and the rule of law from ever happening again."

The call comes after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both conservative justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, have come under scrutiny following their votes last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion almost 50 years ago.

In their confirmation hearings, the justices called Roe a "precedent" that had been "reaffirmed," but neither directly said they wouldn't overturn the landmark 1973 ruling if presented with the opportunity to do so. Gorsuch said Roe v. Wade was "precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other" and that it had been "reaffirmed many times." Kavanaugh similarly called Roe "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times."

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who voted to confirm Gorsuch in 2017 and Kavanaugh in 2018, expressed alarm at the consequential outcome, saying they felt misled by the two justices.

"This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," Collins, an abortion-rights supporter, said in a statement.

"I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," Manchin, who's personally against abortion but supports legislation to protect abortion rights, said in a statement.

Ocasio-Cortez, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, seized on the justices' past statements and claimed that they lied about their views on Roe. The progressive Democrat has been highly outspoken and critical of the Supreme Court since its conservative majority tossed out federal abortion rights, arguing the institution faces a "legitimacy crisis."

Ocasio-Cortez said she believed lying under oath during confirmation hearings is an impeachable offense and it's "something that should be very seriously considered" by lawmakers, including Collins and Manchin.

"To allow that to stand is to allow it to happen," she told NBC News on June 26. "What makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court."

Read the original article on Business Insider

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

 

[TitanTiger 21,242]

If Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied, so did Kagan.  During her confirmation hearing back in 2009 for the office of solicitor general, Sen. John Cornyn asked her straight up, “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?” She replied flatly, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  She was nominated to the SCOTUS by Obama the following year and conservatives were sounding alarm bells that she would be a guaranteed vote for same-sex marriage, and Democrats pointed to her answer to Cornyn's question to say such worries were without merit.  Of course, 5 years later she was a difference making vote in the 5-4 Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

If anything, her statement was far more direct than theirs, but I don't recall any Democrats calling for her to be impeached over it.

Kavanaugh (who I wasn't a fan of) and Gorsuch (who I was) answered the question vaguely but truthfully.  Even the story above notes this:

In their confirmation hearings, the justices called Roe a "precedent" that had been "reaffirmed," but neither directly said they wouldn't overturn the landmark 1973 ruling if presented with the opportunity to do so. Gorsuch said Roe v. Wade was "precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other" and that it had been "reaffirmed many times." Kavanaugh similarly called Roe "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times."

This is much ado about nothing and will be barely (if any) more effective as any protests over Kagan's statements were.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied, so did Kagan.  During her confirmation hearing back in 2009 for the office of solicitor general, Sen. John Cornyn asked her straight up, “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?” She replied flatly, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  She was nominated to the SCOTUS by Obama the following year and conservatives were sounding alarm bells that she would be a guaranteed vote for same-sex marriage, and Democrats pointed to her answer to Cornyn's question to say such worries were without merit.  Of course, 5 years later she was a difference making vote in the 5-4 Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

If anything, her statement was far more direct than theirs, but I don't recall any Democrats calling for her to be impeached over it.

Kavanaugh (who I wasn't a fan of) and Gorsuch (who I was) answered the question vaguely but truthfully.  Even the story above notes this:

In their confirmation hearings, the justices called Roe a "precedent" that had been "reaffirmed," but neither directly said they wouldn't overturn the landmark 1973 ruling if presented with the opportunity to do so. Gorsuch said Roe v. Wade was "precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other" and that it had been "reaffirmed many times." Kavanaugh similarly called Roe "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times."

This is much ado about nothing and will be barely (if any) more effective as any protests over Kagan's statements were.

There’s no analogy. Zero. There was no such right at the time. 5 years later the Court heard arguments and a majority decided they were persuaded there was. Roe was settled law, these liars said. And it was. For decades. They lied their asses off. Zero integrity. You’re free to like the outcome of their lies, but don’t fool yourself. Just enjoy your victory.

[aubiefifty 18,248]

something weird about associating the supreme court and the word liar. i would like my justices to be straight up and straight forward or why have confirmation hearings to begin with? and that is on both sides of the aisle. liars sitting on the supreme court of the land is a bad look. very bad.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s no analogy. Zero. There was no such right at the time. 5 years later the Court heard arguments and a majority decided they were persuaded there was. Roe was settled law, these liars said. And it was. For decades. They lied their asses off. Zero integrity. You’re free to like the outcome of their lies, but don’t fool yourself. Just enjoy your victory.

It's absolutely analogous.  I've got oceanfront properly in Arizona to sell you if you really think Kagan's position on this changed in those 5 years.  She was being vague and stating things as they were at the time to avoid giving the Republicans a reason to rally behind blocking her confirmation.  Her letter later to Sen. Specter gives the tactic away.  It's like asking an adulterous spouse, "Are you cheating on me?" and them coming back with something like "I am not cheating on you," when they mean "I've cheated on you in the past but I'm not currently doing so, and I may in the future."

Neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh said Roe was "settled law."  They affirmed that it was precedent and that stare decisis should factor in to how one would view them from a judicial stance.  Kavanaugh even corrected Sen. Feinstein a bit when she asked him whether he saw it as "settled law," saying what he meant was that it was "settled" or established precedent.  But he was also careful to avoid answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

They affirmed it was important precedent but anyone who thinks their answers shut the door on reconsidering Roe is stretching the bounds of credulity beyond belief.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It's absolutely analogous.  I've got oceanfront properly in Arizona to sell you if you really think Kagan's position on this changed in those 5 years.  She was being vague and stating things as they were at the time to avoid giving the Republicans a reason to rally behind blocking her confirmation.  Her letter later to Sen. Specter gives the tactic away.  It's like asking an adulterous spouse, "Are you cheating on me?" and them coming back with something like "I am not cheating on you," when they mean "I've cheated on you in the past but I'm not currently doing so, and I may in the future."

Neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh said Roe was "settled law."  They affirmed that it was precedent and that stare decisis should factor in to how one would view them from a judicial stance.  Kavanaugh even corrected Sen. Feinstein a bit when she asked him whether he saw it as "settled law," saying what he meant was that it was "settled" or established precedent.  But he was also careful to avoid answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

They affirmed it was important precedent but anyone who thinks their answers shut the door on reconsidering Roe is stretching the bounds of credulity beyond belief.

Not remotely analogous. Sorry you once bit on that Arizona property. Find someone who swallows your argument here and maybe you can dump it.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

53 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not remotely analogous. Sorry you once bit on that Arizona property. Find someone who swallows your argument here and maybe you can dump it.

Keep believing Kagan was being totally above board.

But even without Kagan's obvious tactics, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh never said Roe was settled law, "super precedent" or somehow immune to reconsideration compared to other precedents.  Sorry you bit on bad news reports about what they actually said.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Keep believing Kagan was being totally above board.

But even without Kagan's obvious tactics, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh never said Roe was settled law, "super precedent" or somehow immune to reconsideration compared to other precedents.  Sorry you bit on bad news reports about what they actually said.

Keep forgetting you were present for this and able to call Collins out as a liar.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html

Again, you comparing a hypothetical case that hadn’t come before the court to overturning Roe is deeply disingenuous. 
 

One thing I’m confident of is that Christ would have never led or been involved in this single issue legal movement. Folks who became single issue voters over this at the expense of everything else weren’t doing it to be Christlike.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Keep forgetting you were present for this and able to call Collins out as a liar.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html

I'm not calling her a liar as I wasn't there.  I'm speaking on what we know was said because it was said under questioning on public television.

But neither can you say she was telling the truth, as you were not there.  Sen. Feinstein tried to use the "settled law" wording with him when she referenced a news article about him talking to Collins and he corrected her and said that he did not say what she claimed.  Collins is an experienced politician.  She knows how these things work.  She is subject to the same pressures and need to paint herself in the best light for her constituents as any other political figure.  To automatically assume she's operating from pure motives and wouldn't shade things to her advantage is naive at best.

You think she's recalling his words correctly if you want but what you can't definitively say is that he lied.  And especially since he corrected Feinstein when she referenced this private conversation with Collins, Collins had every opportunity to revisit his remarks and call him out about it during confirmation.  She did not.
 

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Again, you comparing a hypothetical case that hadn’t come before the court to overturning Roe is deeply disingenuous. 

A hypothetical case that was very much in the national conversation in the years leading up to Obergefell, as Obergefell wasn't actually just one case, but the consolidation of six cases that had been making their way through the court system, the earliest case of which (DeBoer v. Snyder) started in 2007, two years before Kagan's solicitor general confirmation hearings.

This wasn't some "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sort of meaningless hypothetical inquiry.  She knew why it was being asked and why it was important.  And she chose to answer it very narrowly and vaguely for that reason.  If anything's disingenuous here, it's pretending you don't get what was going down there.
 

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

One thing I’m confident of is that Christ would have never led or been involved in this single issue legal movement. Folks who became single issue voters over this at the expense of everything else weren’t doing it to be Christlike.

I agree with you that Jesus wouldn't advocate single issue voting or the moral and ethical compromise people would be willing to tolerate in its pursuit.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

51 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not calling her a liar as I wasn't there.  I'm speaking on what we know was said because it was said under questioning on public television.

But neither can you say she was telling the truth, as you were not there.  Sen. Feinstein tried to use the "settled law" wording with him when she referenced a news article about him talking to Collins and he corrected her and said that he did not say what she claimed.  Collins is an experienced politician.  She knows how these things work.  She is subject to the same pressures and need to paint herself in the best light for her constituents as any other political figure.  To automatically assume she's operating from pure motives and wouldn't shade things to her advantage is naive at best.

You think she's recalling his words correctly if you want but what you can't definitively say is that he lied.  And especially since he corrected Feinstein when she referenced this private conversation with Collins, Collins had every opportunity to revisit his remarks and call him out about it during confirmation.  She did not.
 

A hypothetical case that was very much in the national conversation in the years leading up to Obergefell, as Obergefell wasn't actually just one case, but the consolidation of six cases that had been making their way through the court system, the earliest case of which (DeBoer v. Snyder) started in 2007, two years before Kagan's solicitor general confirmation hearings.

This wasn't some "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sort of meaningless hypothetical inquiry.  She knew why it was being asked and why it was important.  And she chose to answer it very narrowly and vaguely for that reason.  If anything's disingenuous here, it's pretending you don't get what was going down there.
 

I agree with you that Jesus wouldn't advocate single issue voting or the moral and ethical compromise people would be willing to tolerate in its pursuit.

She gave Cornyn a straightforward answer to the question he asked— there was no Constitutional right to save sex marriage at that time. 

If asked a hypothetical, which to my knowledge she was not, it would have been inappropriate to state a broad position on a question likely to come before the Court. The arguments had yet to be made. 

In regard to Roe, it was precedent with a large body of cases already addressed by the Court to discuss. Or as Kavanaugh called it, “precedent on precedent.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-planned-parenthood-casey/index.html

You can play the game that I wasn’t there when Collins spoke to him, but I’m not the one disputing what she claims. You see the need to defend the guy because he gave you what you wanted. You have nothing else but wild speculation.
 

There’s no comparison between her brief response and his extended, repeated comments publicly, much less personally to Collins and others.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

She gave Cornyn a straightforward answer to the question he asked— there was no Constitutional right to save sex marriage at that time.

Let's not play dumb here:  Cornyn wasn't asking for her to recite existing constitutional case law.  You know it.  I know it.  He was inquiring as to her views on the matter as it relates to the Constitution.  This sums up the situation well:
 

Quote

Cornyn clearly intended to ask whether Kagan's personal view was that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to guarantee a right to same-sex marriage. But Kagan, when pressed later for clarification of her response, suggested somewhat opaquely that she had only been summarizing case law and public opinion. "I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that '[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage,' " Kagan wrote in a March 18, 2009, letter to then-GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, now a Democrat. "I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning. Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation's citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

https://www.newsweek.com/elena-kagans-non-denial-denial-same-sex-marriage-214370

No serious person could possibly argue here that she (or anyone else) believed Cornyn was asking her whether CURRENT case law at the time granted a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Everyone knew there was not case that granted such rights at the time.
 

Quote

If asked a hypothetical, which to my knowledge she was not, it would have been inappropriate to state a broad position on a question likely to come before the Court. The arguments had yet to be made. 

And a hypothetical case coming up about Roe is in the same vein.  You understand precedent and that it matters, but that like "any other precedent" its subject to being reexamined if a case warrants it.  Even the NY Times article you linked to references this:

"Those in the legal community also say that politicians and members of the judiciary do not see precedent in the same way, and that it is not immutable. That was a point Justice Kavanaugh himself seemed to be making in his concurrence in the Dobbs case on Friday."
 

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

In regard to Roe, it was precedent with a large body of cases already addressed by the Court to discuss. Or as Kavanaugh called it, “precedent on precedent.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-roe-v-wade-planned-parenthood-casey/index.html

You can play the game that I wasn’t there when Collins spoke to him, but I’m not the one disputing what she claims. You see the need to defend the guy because he gave you what you wanted.

I'm simply pointing out that he's on record in the confirmation hearings saying what he meant.  Hearing Collins was sitting in on and ostensibly listening to.  If she didn't take the opportunity to question his clarification of what news reports said he said to her in private, either she's not lying, but is simply lazy and not doing her job, or what he said in private to her isn't nearly the slam dunk she's claiming it to be.

And this is a common tactic ever since the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, another thing the NYT notes:

Many consider Robert Bork the last Supreme Court nominee to engage in deep exchanges with senators over how he would rule from the bench and his rejection in 1987 was attributed to his candor.

Since then, nominees have tread very carefully and followed what has become known as the Ginsburg rule. It is named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020 and said in her 1993 confirmation hearing that a judicial candidate should offer “no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

 

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s no comparison between her brief response and his extended, repeated comments publicly, much less personally to Collins and others.

Again, we don't know exactly what he said to Collins and given her failure to follow up in the confirmation hearings when he corrected Feinstein on this very private conversation, it's impossible to say who's telling the truth.

She was asked a direct question and she gave a very carefully worded, narrow, non-answer answer...essentially following the Ginsburg rule.  You word your respond very particularly and speak in general terms.  Neither of us have to like the game or the political theater that confirmation hearings have devolved into, but it is what it is.  And basically every SCOTUS justice has played it since the Bork hearings on one subject or another.  And it's exactly what Kagan was pulling with her answer.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Let's not play dumb here:  Cornyn wasn't asking for her to recite existing constitutional case law.  You know it.  I know it.  He was inquiring as to her views on the matter as it relates to the Constitution.  This sums up the situation well:
 

No serious person could possibly argue here that she (or anyone else) believed Cornyn was asking her whether CURRENT case law at the time granted a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Everyone knew there was not case that granted such rights at the time.
 

And a hypothetical case coming up about Roe is in the same vein.  You understand precedent and that it matters, but that like "any other precedent" its subject to being reexamined if a case warrants it.  Even the NY Times article you linked to references this:

"Those in the legal community also say that politicians and members of the judiciary do not see precedent in the same way, and that it is not immutable. That was a point Justice Kavanaugh himself seemed to be making in his concurrence in the Dobbs case on Friday."
 

I'm simply pointing out that he's on record in the confirmation hearings saying what he meant.  Hearing Collins was sitting in on and ostensibly listening to.  If she didn't take the opportunity to question his clarification of what news reports said he said to her in private, either she's not lying, but is simply lazy and not doing her job, or what he said in private to her isn't nearly the slam dunk she's claiming it to be.

And this is a common tactic ever since the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, another thing the NYT notes:

Many consider Robert Bork the last Supreme Court nominee to engage in deep exchanges with senators over how he would rule from the bench and his rejection in 1987 was attributed to his candor.

Since then, nominees have tread very carefully and followed what has become known as the Ginsburg rule. It is named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020 and said in her 1993 confirmation hearing that a judicial candidate should offer “no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

 

Again, we don't know exactly what he said to Collins and given her failure to follow up in the confirmation hearings when he corrected Feinstein on this very private conversation, it's impossible to say who's telling the truth.

She was asked a direct question and she gave a very carefully worded, narrow, non-answer answer...essentially following the Ginsburg rule.  You word your respond very particularly and speak in general terms.  Neither of us have to like the game or the political theater that confirmation hearings have devolved into, but it is what it is.  And basically every SCOTUS justice has played it since the Bork hearings on one subject or another.  And it's exactly what Kagan was pulling with her answer.

This is one the more glaringly hypocritical stances I’ve seen you take.

“ If she didn't take the opportunity to question his clarification of what news reports said he said to her in private, either she's not lying, but is simply lazy and not doing her job…”

With zero knowledge of her private conversation with Kavanaugh, you blame her for being lazy, because God knows Brett is pure as the driven snow. But the same doesn’t apply to Cornyn— Kagan had a duty to glean the question he truly wanted asked and correct him.

Again, you equating her brief answer to a question compared to his lengthy response calling Roe “precedent on precedent” is totally disingenuous. I’m frankly amazed at your insistence on this crap.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

This is one the more glaringly hypocritical stances I’ve seen you take.

“ If she didn't take the opportunity to question his clarification of what news reports said he said to her in private, either she's not lying, but is simply lazy and not doing her job…”

With zero knowledge of her private conversation with Kavanaugh, you blame her for being lazy, because God knows Brett is pure as the driven snow. But the same doesn’t apply to Cornyn— Kagan had a duty to glean the question he truly wanted asked and correct him.

Again, you equating her brief answer to a question compared to his lengthy response calling Roe “precedent on precedent” is totally disingenuous. I’m frankly amazed at your insistence on this crap.

I have zero knowledge of her conversation with him but I know exactly what he said in the confirmation hearing and I know exactly what she’s claiming now and they are clearly different. So I find her protestations now less than convincing given that she didn’t say s*** in the hearings when he was correcting Feinstein on the very nature of what he supposedly said to Collins in private.

And where have I ever suggested BK is pure as the wind driven snow?  If you recall I was clearly in the camp that believed there was likely something to Blasey-Ford’s accusations about him. 

I’m simply saying, given what Kavanaugh said in the hearings about this private conversation with Collins, either she didn’t do her due diligence in making him clarify on the record, or what he said publicly was actually in line with what he said privately, which makes her complaints now ring hollow.