When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. The following is how MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks:Īlito: Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito answers questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of his confirmation hearings Januon Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The notion, therefore, that in this exchange he somehow gave an assurance that he would not ever vote to overturn Roe v.
In reality, Thomas was repeatedly urged and asked to make pronouncements on abortion rights, and refused to do so. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue.Īs the transcript makes clear, MeidasTouch cut off the second half of Thomas’s sentence, in which he stipulated that he had “no reason…to prejudge” or “to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.” Senator, as I noted yesterday, and I think we all feel strongly in this country about our privacy - I do - I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. When Metzenbaum again attempted to pin down the nominee, Thomas again prevaricated, providing the quotation that would be mutilated and misrepresented by MeidasTouch in their video: I am afraid that to begin to answer questions about what my specific position is in these contested areas would greatly - or leave the impression that I prejudged this issue. I am afraid though, on your final question, Senator, that it is important for any of us who are judges, in areas that are very deeply contested…I think that to take a position would undermine my ability to be impartial… In response, Thomas prevaricated, as so many judicial nominees have in recent decades: I must ask you to tell us here and now whether you believe that the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, and I am not asking you as to how you would vote in connection with any case before the court. I fear that you, like other nominees before the committee, could assure us that you support a fundamental right to privacy, but could also decline to find that a woman’s right to choose is protected by the constitution.Īt the culmination of his remarks, Metzenbaum asked Thomas: In particular, Metzenbaum asked Thomas to resolve an apparent gap between his putative support for a constitutionally-enshrined right to privacy, more broadly, and abortion rights in particular. Constitution protects abortion rights, and had highlighted what he presented as discrepancies in Thomas’s past pronouncements. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, had been attempting to pin down Thomas’s views on whether the U.S.
#Photo supreme vs open source full#
Readers can watch the exchange in full, or read a full transcript. The clip of Thomas came from a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Sep. Wade, nor on the question of abortion rights. In reality, Thomas absolutely did not provide any assurances on how he might rule on the specific case of Roe v. In this section of the video, MeidasTouch mutilated a 1991 quotation from then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas, and grossly misrepresented the substance and meaning of his remarks. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue. The following is how Meidas Touch presented Thomas’s remarks:Ĭlarence Thomas: I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. Justice Clarence Thomas File photo of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 U.S. The following is our breakdown of what the MeidasTouch “megaviral supercut” video claimed, lined up against what the factual record shows. Therefore, the sweeping allegations of premeditated dishonesty on the part of GOP-appointed justices were as poorly supported by evidence as they were wrongheaded. In brief, describing a ruling as an important precedent is not tantamount to giving a commitment not to overturn that ruling, or indicating you believe that ruling cannot be overruled. Second, they appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent the meaning of a Supreme Court precedent. Senate confirmation hearings, in order to grossly misrepresent the substance of what they said. However, the creators of the video badly misrepresented the full scope of relevant facts in two important ways, and we are issuing a rating of “False.”įirst, they engaged in highly selective editing of much longer and more nuanced archival clips of future justices during their U.S. MeidasTouch posted the video on various social media platforms and used it to solicit monetary contributions.
0 kommentar(er)
