06-29-2022, 10:09 AM
(06-29-2022, 09:38 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So you're fine with judges lying under oath. Got it. I wish I could say I was surprised but again - I've seen your post history.
Why would I bring up RBG? She said it was flawed because she was smart enough to see how some sycophants could unravel it which is why she pushed for Congress to codify it. Just because she seen the writing on the wall when Federalist Society judges started getting SCotUS seats doesn't make her some pariah to me.
Excellent answer. Though I can imagine someone counter-arguing that God's law is above man's, so lying to accomplish God's work is ok for people who know what God wants.
Defenders of the court's recent ruling on Roe argue as if the whole point of the Federalist Society, and Repub presidents' reliance on its judgement for appointees, was simply to solidify the constitutional ground of laws. Like that's what people chant about at Trump rallies--"laws on solid precedent, laws on solid precedent!" as they demand their elected officials look into the coherence of legal reasoning, irrespective of religious and political belief.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
