When assessing Ms. Collin’s intelligence and capacity for reason, one must always remember that when the Senate Chamber was evacuated on January 6th, her first thought was that it was an Iranian terrorist attack.
All three of the justices knew what side of the bread was buttered. And they all definitely knew just WHY they had been nominated in the first place.
The Supreme Court also has a history of Justices who bite the hand which feeds them–as they can’t be removed except via impeachment. Look at Warren Burger or more recently David Souter.
Here’s the point I’m surprised not to have heard anywhere. During confirmation hearings, the potential justices usually say something like what D_Anconia quoted above, that it wouldn’t be proper to comment on how they’d rule on cases that might come before the Court. But after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Justice Thomas mentioned some other decisions that he thought might also be overturned. How is that proper? If a candidate for the Supreme Court shouldn’t announce, in advance, how he’ll rule on particular cases, then an actual Justice damn sure shouldn’t be making those comments.
To be fair, I don’t remember if Thomas did the “it wouldn’t be proper…” thing during his confirmation hearings. It was a while ago.
Thomas also stated that it’s not for judges to make policy or to base decisions on their personal feelings or religious beliefs. So, he’s essentially as full of shit as a septic tank that hasn’t been pumped in a decade.
Stranger
Imho Kavanaugh and Barrett had obviously made up their minds on Roe v Wade before confirmination. I strongly feel they had an agenda to reverse it.
They spoke platitudes and leaglize in their testimony. They worked the system to get on the Supreme Court. Did they actually lie? No.
What else could you expect from 6 devote Catholic judges? The church manipulated this magnificently. There’s no other explanation of how that many judges from a specific church got on the Supreme Court. Millions of disenfranchised women because of 6 people with out-dated religous objections.
Do you have anything, anything at all, to back up that assertion?
How else did this happen? Catholics are a minority in the US. Yet they snagged a majority on the court?
I know religious people tend to be conservative, but why only conservative Catholics on the court?
Yes, Thomas was there very early. I don’t think he came with an agenda. His interest in porn and pubic hairs tells me that his interests are not church based.
Approximately 22% Catholic in the US
I do believe John Roberts came with more of an open mind. He was leaning towards preserving elements of Roe v Wade.
I don’t believe he was insincere in his confirmation.
Nothing as outrageous as Barrett and Kavanaugh.
Well, of the six “devote Catholics”, one was in the dissent.
But more generally, if the Federalist Society is looking for anti-abortion lawyers to groom for the Supreme Court, that target group will likely include Catholics. Not all, as Sotomeyer demonstrates, but probably a fair number.
If your Federalist-approved sample set contains a large number of Catholics because they disapprove of abortion, then that increases the chance for them to be selected by a Republican president.
Too clarify… I don’t in any way think the Pope or his Cardinals directly selected judges.
The Church has lead the fight against Roe v Wade for fifty years. They organized and raised the money for the political fight. Encouraged the violent protests and even attacks at clinics. Women were faced with mobs of people in the parking lots and blocking the doors.
The church created the political environment to repeal Roe v Wade. That’s manipulation in my humble opinion. They imposed their short-sighted minority will on tens of millions of women.
I’m personally ashamed that we as a majority didn’t fight back thirty years ago and preserved Roe v Wade as Federal law. We were foolish to ever trust the Supreme Court. We were told repeatedly the court isn’t political. Pure bs.
That happens when judges are evasive in their confirmation hearings.
And yet everybody who bothered to pay attention knew what was happening.
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI.
Except of course, the senators who voted for them and then expressed surprise at their actions.
But maybe they weren’t bothering to pay attention.
Again, you are making declarative statements as if they were facts, only without evidence. Do you have a cite that the CHURCH encouraged violent protests?
It’s my understanding many leaders of the pro life movement are from the Catholic church and other religions.
Who taught them their values? Who do they talk to in confession? Who tells them not to use birth control or terminate pregnancy?
It’s the church priests.
People with unusually strong convictions are going to react irrationality. They’ve got to save the unborn babies. Make certain that poor sperm can swim to the ovulating egg. The majority of pro lifers peacefully marched and wrote letters. Some mobbed the parking lots and blocked the doors of clinics. A few clinics were bombed. Doctors shot. Thankfully not many.
I’ve seen it many times. The clinic is near my home and the crowds with signs are impossible to miss. The police tried to keep a path to the door open.
It’s the extreme political environment that’s lead to the unrest and division in the US.
I’m gonna take a contrarian position here and say that this is called “lying.”
Everybody knew that these were candidates who would cheerfully overturn Roe v. Wade. The nominees knew it, Senate Judiciary knew it, the American People knew it. Everyone also knew this was an incendiary issue that would cost Trump’s nominees the nomination if they were forthright about it.
What did they do? They weren’t forthright. They gave an answer crafted so that the right people could pretend these nominees said the opposite of what they’d actually end up doing.
Note also that we can disregard all the cat-and-mouse theatrics of asking judges to telegraph what they’d decide. They could answer questions like whether they thought Roe v Wade was properly decided, they could expound on their personal legal theories that informed this opinion. Instead they played cheeky little games with a blank notepad.
You can call it whatever flavor of lying you like, but they knowingly and purposefully lied in order to gain a job of a lifetime, for a lifetime.
So no cite that the Church encourages violence, then.
Remember, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Your saying teachers aren’t responsible for their students actions? Church services are a type of instruction and inspiration.
I’ve attended churches with guest speakers that started with inspirational hymns and then gave sermons on the evils of American society and especially abortion.
I knew they were full of shit. I don’t have a cite proving it. 
A lot of people left church fired up and ready for the protests the next week.
It’s true the speaker didn’t say to break the law. It was made clear to make anyone trying to access the clinic extremely uncomfortable. Yell, hand out graphic, bloody literature and write down car tag numbers. I’ve heard some women had protesters in their driveway. That’s the reason for the car tags.
Amy Barrett is hard core Catholic. People of Praise. Amy may be more Catholic than the Pope. 
Dancing around Roe v. Wade is small potatoes when it comes to Supreme Court nominee deception.
The Big Lie told by Supreme Court justices is that their decisions are nonpartisan and unaffected by personal beliefs.
“Having reached the heights of the legal profession, it must be deflating for the justices to recognize that the public is not obligated to reflect their self-regard. In truth, the public is simply reciprocating the contempt that the justices show for the people every time they insist on lying to their face about how the Court works, or why it looks the way it does today.”
Senators should base confirmation votes on a nominee’s paper trail, and cheerfully vote against anyone who dodges questions about how they’d decide major issues of the day or insists they’re not motivated by religious or other personal beliefs. Confirmation hearings are basically political theater with no useful function anyway.