So when are those conservative judges going to be impeached?

@sarabee1995 There are no grounds for impeachment. They simply changed their minds in light of evidence and discussion. Hardly impeachable. Justices uphold and defend the constitution based on their learned opinion and the constitution itself. If justices were impeachable because they did not vote the way the opposition party demanded, then the separation of powers would be null and void and chaos and anarchy would set in.

@TexChik They made pretty definitive statements to the Senate. If their opinions on the matter were subject to further discussion, then they should have abstained from answering direct questions on the matter. If their opinions were swayed by new evidence, what is this new evidence? I'm not aware of any.

My point is simply that our system only works when we all abide by it, Republican and Democrat. And we can only criticize the opposing side when our own house is clean.

This is not a good look for conservatives. Not good at all. You know that I live fairly right of center, but last week really made me want to distance myself from the conservative label. I'm not happy about this.

@sarabee1995 The attachment of abortion to the constitution was nothing more than liberal judicial activism. They forced the entire country to abide by a law many states found offensive. The court righted that wrong and placed the states back in control of what was rightfully their issue. They did not offer a decision of the legality or illegality of it. I have never agreed with Roe V Wade for that reason alone.

criticism should then be at a standstill because the democrat house is unclean.

@TexChik I don't disagree with you on the Roe decision. It was sloppy law at best and more likely an inappropriate use of judicial power.

But that's not what we are talking about today. We're not talking about that because four of the justices in the majority decision here stated on the record under oath in front of the Senate that Roe was settled law. If they hadn't said that, then we could have a serious public debate about the role of SCOTUS in interpretating law and not making it.

You know I'm a Constitutional Purist. I've discussed, debated, and defended our Constitution here for years. But within that Constitution that I'm sworn to defend is the authority of Congress and the role of the Senate to advise and consent to judicial appointees. It's a beautiful system. If everyone plays their role and respects the system, then we would get relatively moderate judices driving a middle of the road judiciary. And THAT is better than a conservative or a liberal bench. The judiciary should function as the neutral referee in our system, not as activists for either side.

Conservatives last week proved that they are just the same as what they have complained for so long about our liberal friends: willing to manipulate the system for a win.

For that I am disappointed.

@sarabee1995 You know, it also could be PERJURY.

@TexChik States don't have feelings. Individual people have feelings. If individual people are offended by the idea of abortion and do not want to have an abortion then they can choose that for themselves. Or we WERE free to choose or not choose before it was overturned. Now it's unclear. It was up to the people to decide that for themselves as individuals. Isn't that nice and democratic? Now it's a state's decision and that means politics muddy everything down.

If a majority votes so that people do NOT have freedom to choose, they are forcing all the minority groups of people who voted and have a voice and say to comply with a law that offends them. Back to square one then aren't we?

Isn't it better to just leave it up to each individual (The MOST FAIR option) rather then playing pingpong between groups of people with different beliefs dictating one thing or the other? Or do you prefer to have different groups of people tell you what to do with your body and health?

@Scribbles Freedom is having the ability to voice your opinions and to vote via your elected state representative, it does not assure you will always get your way .

@TexChik I'll hold you to that "freedom" when the government votes to get rid of the second amendment years from now.

@Scribbles the government can’t vote to get rid of it because it’s a constitutional amendment and it’s protected. It would take a 2/3 consensus of the states to get it done . That’s not happening.

@Scribbles And I will hold you to your promise that you will PURGE the tendency to misspell PERJURY.

@RedBaron I didn't misspell perjury as purgery. You must be mistaking me for Sarabee1995.

@Scribbles You are correct. My apologies.

@RedBaron My humblest apologies for the misspelling. I promise to do better in the future! 😔

@sarabee1995 You are forgiven, my child. The grammar police let you off with a warning! 😂