you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

/u/socks you are the one lying. The video doesn't show anybody saying they wouldn't overturn Roe.

In fact if a nominee ever did say that then that would mean they should never be confirmed. Justices are supposed to do their job with zero agendas and zero politics.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps have another look?

1 says she has no agenda to overturn RvW, but the does have an agenda to overturn RvW (it's why she was nominated)

2 it's an important precedent, and reaffirmed many times, but apparently it's not an important prededent and the reaffirmations don't matter

3 good judge will consider this precident, worthy of treatment of precedent, but obviously won't

4 reaffirmed decision is strengthened, but apparently not

5 no reason to prejudge the right to privacy, but prejudges the right to privacy

6 what would you have done if Trump asked to overturn RvW; I would've walked out the door, but will now overturn RvW

(Lies are also half truths. Moreover, I'm not the one who wrote the title. Check out the link and their comments, if you have a problem with it. This post is in /s/MeanwhileOnReddit so that Saiditors can have a laugh at Redditors, while also considering the veracity of the claim.)

You might like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SnN5MJyzPs

[–]wristaction 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This must feel unfair to you, but it's okay.