|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Justice Elena Kagan lie to Congress? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Might Kagan have clarified during followup (hint, hint, you might want to look up a fuller accounting of what she said).
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sarah Bellum writes: Do you really think she changed her mind? Or simply told a convenient lie? Or maybe there was a 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? You're applying a common and utterly fallacious discussion style:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sarah Bellum writes: Percy writes: Might Kagan have clarified during followup (hint, hint, you might want to look up a fuller accounting of what she said). Oh, I'm quite sure she revised and extended her remarks! It would be more accurate to say that once she saw her comment being interpreted out of context that she described the context:
quote 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sarah Bellum writes: Oh, no, if President Biden could appoint, say, four new justices, which he can, given Democrat control of Congress... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sarah Bellum writes: In the days of majority leader Lyndon Johnson people like Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have been able to pull their stunts. Lyndon Johnson was Senate majority leader in the 85th Congress (1957-1959) with a 2 seat majority. He was Senate majority leader again in the 86th Congress (1959-1961) with a 28 seat majority. Chuck Shumer is Senate majority leader today in the 117th Congress (2021-2023) with a 0 seat majority with the Vice President casting the tie vote. You are correct that Manchin and Sinema wouldn't be able to wield the power they do were they in either of Johnson's Congresses, but it has nothing to do with Johnson and everything to do with the fact that he had an actual majority, especially in the 86th Congress. Though I can't say I agree with the specifics of your other comments, I understand how you could feel that way. Robert Heinlein once wrote that the mere fact of desiring public office should be disqualifying. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Sarah Bellum writes: This just proves my point. You say "Many quotes attributed to famous people are not true," which is certainly a true statement. Everyone knows it's true. So there's no need to provide references for it. So you didn't provide references. And of course nobody is calling you out for not providing references. I don't know if anyone's bothered to document the degree of misattribution of quotes on the Internet, but I can't count the number of times I've noted that it wasn't actually so-and-so who said such-and such. I don't know if it's true, but it feels like most quotes get attributed to Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sarah Bellum writes: 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? I quoted the relevant actual exchange from her confirmation hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court. If you want to point to the parts of it you're thinking of then we can talk about it, but this message contains far too little information, just suggestions she was lying while not bothering to indicate where she lied. I'm still wondering why you're focused on Kagan when three justices responsible for overturning Roe clearly and unambiguously lied during their confirmation hearings. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
It's like you didn't understand anything I said.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024