"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," 这是要推翻Roe v Wade判例draft中的第一句话
在参议会听证会上，手按圣经对上帝宣誓过的大法官们，面对全美直播下，红口白牙地回答对Roe v Wade判例的看法：
怎么现在变成“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,"？他们这不是在玩弄法律吗？还有什么integrity？truth？decency？
Neil Gorsuch (2017）：took the uncontroversial line that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the "anchor of law," he said. "It is the starting place for a judge."
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
Brett Kavanaugh (2018)："It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."
Samuel Alito (2006)："Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels."
Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.
"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' "he said
Precedent is “the anchor of the law” and “the starting point” for a judge, Gorsuch said during his hearing. However, “there are instances when a court may appropriately overrule precedent after considering a lot of factors,” he added.
Gorsuch was also asked if Roe v. Wade had “super precedent.” Gorsuch refused to say the case has “super precedent” and instead said the decision has been “reaffirmed many times.”
美国是判例法系，以先前案例判案。说Roe是先例，是anchor of law, 又reaffirmed, 你说什么意思？
在听证会上有表达过“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start"一丝一毫的意吗？这不是撒谎又是什么？
同样来自你提供的资料：
In the exchange, Gorsuch acknowledged that the Supreme Court had held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, a legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade.
"Do you accept that?" asked Durbin.
"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied.
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all stressed the importance of precedence during Senate confirmation hearings. Each said Roe v. Wade is a precedent, but added caveats. Barrett said Roe is not a "super precedent." Gorsuch did not directly answer the super precedent question. Kavanaugh said he would listen to arguments that precedents were wrongly decided.
The speculation over how Justice Alito might treat abortion cases stems from several opinions he wrote in the 1980s. The first, a 1985 memo he produced while working as a Justice Department lawyer, discusses whether the government should take a position on an abortion rights case pending before the court. In his memo, Alito wrote that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade," the pivotal 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who, though a conservative, had been a key vote in protecting abortion rights. At the confirmation hearings, his letter and the memo were a major focus of questioning by both Democrats and pro-abortion-rights Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) tried to pin down Alito’s views, asking point-blank, “John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?”
Roe was “an important precedent” that had “been challenged on a number of occasions,” Alito responded. The Supreme Court had “reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis [using previous precedent].”
“The more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it,” he said, and “I think that’s entitled to considerable respect, and of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to, and that’s my view of that. So it is a very important precedent that —”
Okay, Durbin interrupted, but is it the settled law of the land?
“If settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing,” Alito equivocated. “If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.”
“How do you see it?” Durbin asked. Alito answered with the careful and evasive language that has become a standard of these types of hearings, saying that since there were cases about abortion before the court, he couldn’t comment.
Justice Clarence Thomas had been similarly evasive in 1991, testifying that he had no personal opinion on Roe v. Wade. Just a few months later, he joined the dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, claiming Roe had been incorrectly decided — and prompting some abortion-rights activists to argue that Thomas had perjured himself.
But just as they had for Thomas, Alito’s evasive answers worked: He was confirmed on a 58-to-42 vote — at the time one of the narrowest votes ever to confirm a justice.
"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," 这是要推翻Roe v Wade判例draft中的第一句话
在参议会听证会上，手按圣经对上帝宣誓过的大法官们，面对全美直播下，红口白牙地回答对Roe v Wade判例的看法：
怎么现在变成“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,"？他们这不是在玩弄法律吗？还有什么integrity？truth？decency？
Neil Gorsuch (2017）：took the uncontroversial line that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the "anchor of law," he said. "It is the starting place for a judge."
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
Brett Kavanaugh (2018)："It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."
Samuel Alito (2006)："Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels."
Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.
"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' "he said
详情见以下link
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings
谢谢"未完的歌”提供的以上Link信息
再多给你点信息。。
Precedent is “the anchor of the law” and “the starting point” for a judge, Gorsuch said during his hearing. However, “there are instances when a court may appropriately overrule precedent after considering a lot of factors,” he added.
Gorsuch was also asked if Roe v. Wade had “super precedent.” Gorsuch refused to say the case has “super precedent” and instead said the decision has been “reaffirmed many times.”
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/05/don-beyer/yes-trump-justices-said-roe-v-wade-was-precedent-c/
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/scotus-verify/what-justices-gorsuch-barrett-kavanaugh-said-roe-v-wade-confirmation-hearings/536-cdc8cbaa-cf81-4db9-a861-05ea5fbcb05a
大法官公然表态说谎，也就是说任何一个证人在法庭上可以玩这种下三流游戏，美国社会会变成什么样子？
在听证会上有表达过“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start"一丝一毫的意吗？这不是撒谎又是什么？
同样来自你提供的资料：
In the exchange, Gorsuch acknowledged that the Supreme Court had held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, a legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade.
"Do you accept that?" asked Durbin.
"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied.
现在全推翻了？liar!
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all stressed the importance of precedence during Senate confirmation hearings. Each said Roe v. Wade is a precedent, but added caveats. Barrett said Roe is not a "super precedent." Gorsuch did not directly answer the super precedent question. Kavanaugh said he would listen to arguments that precedents were wrongly decided.
如果是egregiously wrong, 至少Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett 不可能在l听证后的两三年内改变想法，在听证时就该说这是Law of the land（Gorsuch）
不是定稿，断章取义第挑出阿利托一句话，那句话的前后左右在说什么也不知。
其他几位法官到底同意到那个程度，最后定稿是什么你也不知。就判定几位法官都在说谎。这也太容易被鼓噪和忽悠了吧。。。
Alito's Record on Abortion
The speculation over how Justice Alito might treat abortion cases stems from several opinions he wrote in the 1980s. The first, a 1985 memo he produced while working as a Justice Department lawyer, discusses whether the government should take a position on an abortion rights case pending before the court. In his memo, Alito wrote that the government "should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade," the pivotal 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
多时候，传统派还要面对自己阵营内的现实派的挑战。
那黑人大法官、女性大法官都不应该坐在高级法院位置上吗？
做为起草的draft， 内容己得到确认，不是谣传。draft要代表讨论的总体意见，不是某个人法官的想法，这点你清楚吗？
请问你，从这些大法官公开表态来看，谁表示过
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start？你就是如此逻辑和严谨的吗？不应该信任这些大法官公开表态？
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/03/alito-history-roe-wade/
Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who, though a conservative, had been a key vote in protecting abortion rights. At the confirmation hearings, his letter and the memo were a major focus of questioning by both Democrats and pro-abortion-rights Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) tried to pin down Alito’s views, asking point-blank, “John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?”
Roe was “an important precedent” that had “been challenged on a number of occasions,” Alito responded. The Supreme Court had “reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis [using previous precedent].”
“The more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it,” he said, and “I think that’s entitled to considerable respect, and of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to, and that’s my view of that. So it is a very important precedent that —”
Okay, Durbin interrupted, but is it the settled law of the land?
“If settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing,” Alito equivocated. “If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.”
“How do you see it?” Durbin asked. Alito answered with the careful and evasive language that has become a standard of these types of hearings, saying that since there were cases about abortion before the court, he couldn’t comment.
Justice Clarence Thomas had been similarly evasive in 1991, testifying that he had no personal opinion on Roe v. Wade. Just a few months later, he joined the dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, claiming Roe had been incorrectly decided — and prompting some abortion-rights activists to argue that Thomas had perjured himself.
But just as they had for Thomas, Alito’s evasive answers worked: He was confirmed on a 58-to-42 vote — at the time one of the narrowest votes ever to confirm a justice.
宪法没提到过堕胎是否是天赋人权，但百多年前的宪法同样也没提到过女性是否应该拥有同男人一样的权力、没提到到有色人种应该与白色人种同样的平等权力、没提到过公民应该有隐私权………
如果由此去解读宪法，去推翻Roe案，同样的原理与逻辑，其他的权利也可以类推推翻。可以吗？
这个宪法的引用是否真的合适一直是争论的焦点，于是才有了阿利托的这个推翻Roe案的草案。。。
对于推翻Roe案是否会影响其他，在泄露的判决书草案中，阿利托法官认为，”我们强调，我们的决定涉及宪法规定的堕胎权，而不是其他权利…。本意见中的任何内容都不应被理解为对不涉及堕胎的先例产生怀疑”。
所以我告诉你，去看一遍草案再说。。。
而你，上来就说不能推翻，上来就说这些大法官在说谎等等等等，太容易被鼓噪被忽悠了。
如果有耐心，把草案看一遍吧
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf
如果能正常推翻，他们在参议院问询时为何对Roe案不敢堂堂正正地表明自己的态度与立场？
靠欺骗上位，再完全翻案？下三流手段！
你从来没有自己的思想，视法官观点为逻辑、为真理。真是可笑，
如果有一位大位官持libral 观点的，Roe案会被推翻吗？
你为美国红州那些女性考虑过吗？
看来你对"逻辑"是什么都不清楚。
强烈建议你先去学习一下“什么是逻辑''
而且你自己提到："非你我这类非法律人士能简单地判定对错的", 既然你认定你不能简单地判断对错了，那你为何一直为此背书呢？这不是与你的主题相矛盾的吗？