They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
They didn’t actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn’t have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.