alwaysluck2022-05-06 21:15:38

"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."

未完的歌2022-05-06 21:41:17
说是先例(precedent) 就代表以后不能推翻?这些严谨滴水不漏的大法官们不会那么傻叫你们抓住把柄吧。哈哈。
alwaysluck2022-05-06 21:51:18
拜托你一字一句读一下英文吧!这些如何与egregious wrong from the start 联系起来?请解释一下
未完的歌2022-05-06 22:03:48
对啊,本身一直有争议。所以在听证会上谨慎的表达看法,现在要推翻了,当然明确说有问题了。。。
alwaysluck2022-05-06 22:21:45
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?
未完的歌2022-05-06 22:49:58
你说呢,难道先例不能推翻吗?为什么这些法官面对这些问题择词那么谨慎,很多时候不正面回答,你以为那么容易叫你抓漏洞?
SwiperTheFox2022-05-06 23:10:38
先例是可以推翻, 但是在判决中占有极大的权重。如果需要推翻慎重的考虑, 何况Roe是经过几十次判决反复认证过的法律。
未完的歌2022-05-06 23:16:13
如果你思维更加严密一点,阿利托一直支持限制堕胎,理由是“宪法没有保护堕胎权”。这本身只是阿利托起草的草案。
未完的歌2022-05-06 23:19:17
在听证会上,为什么他们不说和回避这是“super precedent." 你看不出来?
SwiperTheFox2022-05-06 23:29:51
我听不听出来不是关键,关键他们是撒了谎, 比如Susan Collin 和 Murkowski 相信了他们, 投了赞成票
SwiperTheFox2022-05-06 23:33:37
知道跟你说的再明白也没用:阿利托在听证会上说: 以前反堕胎的言论是当时作为客户律师的职责,作为法官,需要重新审视这个问题
未完的歌2022-05-06 23:42:26
不懂法就说别人撒谎,哈哈。
alwaysluck2022-05-07 00:06:03
按你的逻辑,宪法没有提过女性的任何权利、没有提过种族平权、没有提过公民的隐私权…
未完的歌2022-05-07 00:16:27
听证会如何回答问题,太有技巧了。前些日子拜登提名的大法官人选拒绝定义“女人” ,理由是她不是生物学家
未完的歌2022-05-07 00:19:36
你先把草稿看一遍,行不。至于堕胎是不是隐私权什么什么宪法问题,我们这些人是说不清的。否则就没有阿利托的这个推翻的草案了
alwaysluck2022-05-07 00:31:12
你整个逻辑都没搞清楚。堕胎是不是宪法问题?
alwaysluck2022-05-07 00:33:34
懂法的也都说大法官们没有integrity和honesty
未完的歌2022-05-07 01:29:11
我最喜欢讲逻辑了。当初引用修正案第14和修正案第9判的罗案,因为双方意见不同,才加上了折中的按怀孕时间判决。
alwaysluck2022-05-07 02:14:22
你的解释就是,只要大法官说的就是逻辑,尽管大法官的解释也不合乎逻辑,呵呵!
未完的歌2022-05-07 02:48:20
我的逻辑是,这是一个在美国司法届争论了多年的案件。司法届支持反对都有各自的理由,非你我这类非法律人士能简单地判定对错的
alwaysluck2022-05-07 03:44:47
你把Roe v Wade案例好好分析过吗?你对高院每一次reaffirm的结论都看过没有?
alwaysluck2022-05-07 03:48:37
你的回答也根本不是逻辑,还是视大法官结论为逻辑,