I am watch the Senate debate on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I watch recordings at high speed when possible.
Right now I was just infuriated by a serious LIE by omission uttered by the serpentine Sen Feinstein.
There are different ways to lie. This is one of them: omission, exclusionary detailing.
In regard to Barrett’s position about Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion Feinstein slyly LIED about Barrett’s position.
Feinstein said that Barrett would not call Roe v Wade a “super precedent“. A super precedent is a precedent that is so important that no one challenges it.
Examples of a super precedent is Marbury v Madison or Mapp v Ohio or Brown v. Board. No one challenges the exercise of judicial review, or that the 4th Amendment is incorporated against states through the 14th Amendment, or that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from segregating school on the basis of race). Those are super precedents.
Constant challenges to a law demonstrate that the law is not a super precedent. Stare decisis still might hold, however. Laws can be important precedents without being super precedents.
There are constant challenges to Roe v Wade: hence, Roe is not super precedent.
But listen to what sidewinding Feinstein does. She says (at 1:05 below) that Barrett would not say that Roe v Wade is a super precedent. Then lying Feinstein shifts the terms (at 1:25) and moves into the category “settled law” (re: Griswold) and “important precedent” (Casey and ROE), hoping you don’t catch the slight of hand.
Slithery Feinstein is too smart not to know what she did. She lied by misrepresentation, exclusionary detailing.
Barrett did NOT say that Griswold, Casey and Roe were NOT precedents. She didn’t say that they were important precedents. Barrett understands that cases might come before her on the Court that deal with these precedents, and so she is bound not to discuss them. The problem is they are constantly being challenged, which slippery Feinstein herself acknowledged. Barrett rightly said that Roe is not a super precedent.
Ooooo… this is … Jesuitical. She is as bad as some clergy who screw language into pretzels to deceive without seeming to deceive.
Except that the clergy, for example, those who by omission, who teach only part of the Church’s teachings about certain moral issues, are worse, because by their false teaching they can lead souls to HELL instead of merely be left on the Court of Appeals rather than the SCOTUS.