Also, I’m pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it’s discovered later, then it feels like it’s fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as “precedent”, then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it’s discovered later, you can bet we’d be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don’t swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it’s absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don’t constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn’t trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
Also, I’m pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it’s discovered later, then it feels like it’s fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as “precedent”, then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it’s discovered later, you can bet we’d be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don’t swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it’s absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don’t constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn’t trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.