Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress?

No, no, of course not! And the next time I make mention of something that's common knowledge and you don't understand it, rest assured, I'll hunt up references and explain it to you. I'll even use short words, if necessary.

Why do you try to force a lie into her mouth? There is no controversy here with Kagan. Why try to manufacture one?Kavanaugh and Gorsuch actually lied under oath during their confirmation. There is no comparison with Kagan's statements except in the twisted mind of the right-wing trolls.Stop lying about this crap. There will be no impeachment of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch so quit trying to lie some kind of stupid defense for them.

You are making a claim of a statement by people. Much different.

You know, talking down to people doesn't make you sound well informed or super smart, it just makes you sound like a rude, arrogant asshole.

This thread seems to exist for the sole purpose of posting personal attacks against Justice Kagan. Or perhaps the intention is to attack liberals.Maybe it is time to close this thread.

quote

---

A "reversal" would scarcely be necessary. In Dobbs the Supreme Court didn't "ban" abortion, it merely returned us to the (very bad days) of pre-Roe abortion law.

---

Nevertheless it is what you suggested.

quote

---

All Congress has to do now is pass a law guaranteeing a right to an abortion. Such a law wouldn't be struck down by the Supreme Court (otherwise it would have already struck down laws in states like Oregon or Vermont).

---

I suggest that even if cases against these laws had come to the Supreme Court - and who would file such cases on what grounds? - they could hardly have prevailed while Roe stood. A Federal law could more easily be challenged.

You're applying a common and utterly fallacious discussion style:

1. Make an assertion.
2. Ignore the substance in all responses.
3. Repeat original assertion.
4. Return to step 2.

--Percy

It would be more accurate to say that once she saw her comment being interpreted out of context that she described the context:

quote

---

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.
  —Kagan in letter to Arlen Specter

---

You're making the same claim made at the time way back in 2009 and 2010 that she was trying to mislead the committee that she would not vote to create a right to same-sex marriage, except that this wasn't a hearing for a spot on the Supreme Court. It was a hearing for a position as solicitor general, and the question was, given her public support for same sex marriage, whether she could support the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time. And of course there was no constitutional right to same-sex marriage at the time. The Supreme Court hadn't ruled that there was one yet.But it has been argued that she was being deceptive and answered this way in order to improve her chances for a nomination to the Supreme Court. This is from the hearings on Kagan's Supreme Court nomination: Is that clear enough?--Percy

Democrats don't have real control of Congress. They head the committees, but their voting advantage is so slight as to be meaningless. Their House majority is small, and their Senate majority is by the slimmest possible of margins. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, including to expand the court unless they suspend the filibuster rules, which seems unlikely.--Percy

That moron patronizingly implied I'd erred in not posting references to something that is common knowledge, then, when I did post references (instead of saying "Look it up yourself, I'm not responsible for your ignorance!"), they condescendingly replied "Was that so hard?" and then lectured smugly, "That is how we do things in this forum."I'm beginning to agree with nwr. Maybe it is time to close this thread.

So does this mean you're going for the third alternative, that she used enough cleverly chosen verbiage so that what she said wasn't a lie, but could be interpreted by her listeners in disparate ways?

The point is, of course, that nobody lied in their testimony. Back when Robert Bork was nominated, Senators weren't quite so dim as they are nowadays (and I'm talking about you Senator Collins!) and voted against him, despite what he may or may not have said at the hearings. Because they considered other things about his record than the tiny fraction of it that consisted of his words at a Congressional hearing!

It all depends. If I'd quoted from Grover Cleveland's second inaugural, you might ask for references. If I'd quoted from Lincoln's, maybe not.

I'm beginning to think maybe it is that time.

In the days of majority leader Lyndon Johnson people like Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have been able to pull their stunts.But nowadays Congress seems to be a place that passes vague legislation (or more commonly blocks it) and hopes properly placed people in the federal bureaucracy do what they want. Oh, and they also try to get people appointed to the courts to do what they want (or more commonly block what they don't want).Then they use the controversy to raise money for the next election.