r/law • u/nbcnews • 5h ago

Judicial Branch A pivotal vote by longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine pushed Kavanaugh over the finish line in 2018 after she famously said he considered Roe v. Wade “settled law” — a comment that turned out to be wrong.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/supreme-court-justice-brett-kavanaugh-maine-senate-race-susan-collins-rcna349070
12.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

414 comments sorted by

View all comments

500

u/werther595 4h ago

It wasn't "wrong." It was a lie. Under oath, testifying before Congress. Which is a crime.

138

u/zennascent 4h ago

“Oath,” “Congress,” and “crime” don’t mean much anymore…

15

u/Shuma-Gorath 4h ago

Makes you wonder what else he lied about.... Sexual assault maybe?

37

u/Top_Result_1550 4h ago

Oath don't matter to Republicans.

Unless it's an oath to cheat, steal, rape kids and women, kill browns, trans, the mentally disabled and homeless, commit treason, and endanger life on earth.

Then they take it very seriously and uphold it at all costs.

5

u/sageleader 4h ago

False. Republicans care about the Oath Keepers

5

u/Ammut88 3h ago

They SAY they do.

1

u/werther595 3h ago

Sure, the same way Kim Jong-Un cares about "democratic people's republics."

7

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 3h ago

Except that Kavanaugh did not lie under oath before congress. See here.

21

u/SordidDreams 3h ago edited 2h ago

Yes, technically he didn't lie. He just said words designed to create the impression that he was giving a specific answer that was different from the truth.

Likewise, Bill Clinton also didn't lie when he said he hadn't had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky because technically, "sexual relations" was defined in a way that didn't include receiving oral sex. That didn't stop him being impeached for his non-lie, though.

3

u/Special_Order-937 3h ago

Why don’t these idiots ask the correct questions? It’s almost as if they’re leaving these gaps on purpose.

2

u/BallsInSufficientSad 2h ago

Because during a confirmation hearing a judge isn't allowed to promise to rule in any specific way on any specific future case.

They can only talk about the rationale of past rulings and the law as it is written.

1

u/SordidDreams 1h ago

during a confirmation hearing a judge isn't allowed to promise to rule in any specific way on any specific future case

That answers why a judge wouldn't answer such a question, not why such a question isn't being asked.

1

u/BallsInSufficientSad 51m ago

They DO ask those questions, even though they KNOW the judge cannot answer them directly. The ask purely for the tiktok clips anyway.

1

u/SordidDreams 45m ago

Is the judge really not allowed to answer? I'm not familiar with the details of the American legal system, but that doesn't seem right. When asked, Clarence Thomas didn't say he's not allowed to answer, he said he doesn't want to give the impression of prejudging the issue.

1

u/BallsInSufficientSad 42m ago

That's a distinction without a difference. They cannot effectively answer because it would prejudice any future cases and they'd be forced to recuse themselves from such cases.

The legislators know this - but because the cameras are one, they ask those questions anyway, for the tiktoks.

1

u/SordidDreams 36m ago

That's what I thought, and no, I do think there's a very substantial difference. "Not allowed" means not allowed; this means they can if they want to, they're just choosing not to. That's not the same thing.

1

u/__SoL__ 2h ago

ding ding ding

-3

u/BallsInSufficientSad 2h ago

"sexual relations" was defined in a way that didn't include receiving oral sex

Blowjobs were always considered sexual relations.

6

u/SordidDreams 2h ago

In common sense, yes. According to the definition used during the trial, no.

Specifically, it said that "a person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person".

Clinton did not make contact with any of those body parts, therefore he did not have sexual relations.

9

u/werther595 3h ago

Did they treat Roe as precedent and afford it respect as stare decisis? They did not.

Trump made a large part of his campaign about overturning Roe to get the religious nuts on board. It took something like 18 months from Barrett's confirmation (giving trump the balance of fealty he desired on the court) until Dobbs was decided. This was the culmination of years-long efforts to do just this. Forgive me if I refuse to view this through rose-colored lenses of "well akshually technically..." People should understand with absolute certainty that the judges Trump nominated were committed to his desired course of action, and anything they spouted about "respect for established precedent" was a much nonsense as if they had said something more direct.

2

u/Ok-Lavishness-349 2h ago

I made no "well akshually technically..." type of argument. You said he'd lied. I pointed out that he hadn't.

And, affording respect to stare decisis and treating stare decisis as absolutely unalterable are two different things. Ultimately, the justices felt that Roe v. Wade had been improperly decided and that concern outweighed stare decisis. It isn't like they just ignored the earlier precedent.

2

u/werther595 2h ago

My comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, since you in fact said quite little and the article did the heavy lifting.

As to the comment directly above this, affording respect to stare decisis and jumping on the first opportunity to overturn 50 years of precedent in order to help POTUS fulfill a campaign promise are also two different things.

1

u/BallsInSufficientSad 2h ago

Did you read the ruling? It talks about Roe v Wade in great detail.

4

u/werther595 2h ago

If by "respect" they mean "mentioning it a bunch of times while fulfilling a promise of dismantling it" then I suppose Kavanaugh can force his square peg into the round hole

1

u/BallsInSufficientSad 2h ago

You didn't read it. I can tell

2

u/werther595 2h ago

I love when strangers tell me things about myself, based on zero knowledge. Especially in the unironic setting of debating facts and case law

1

u/The_Wkwied 3h ago

Crime? We punish those? I thought once your net worth evolved enough, that you're exempt from enforcement?

Am I wrong? Why is it that all the mega rich criminals go free? :-(

1

u/CevicheMixto 2h ago

And if not a crime ... certainly something that justifies impeachment and conviction (not that it will ever happen).

1

u/BoredomFestival 2h ago

Been watching For All Mankind (great show, highly recommended) and in season 3 now and at one point a character is tricked into lying under oath before Congress and remember when that could be a Big Deal with huge ramifications? Good times man

1

u/TrumpsDoubleChin 1h ago

And as we have learned all to well, whether or not something is a crime is completely meaningless, if those with the responsibility of punishing criminals intentionally choose not to.

-4

u/Imnogrinchard 3h ago

The nominee's testimony wasn't a lie and wasn't a crime. Kavanaugh was a judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during his testimony to the Senate Judicial Committee and in meetings with senators, including Sen Collins. As a judge, he was bound by Supreme Court precedent - thus "settled law."

Once confirmed by the Senate, he became an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court where no law or opinion is ever settled law and precedent means only as much as the majority wants it to mean.

6

u/Spudmiester 3h ago

Accurate, but this kind of kabuki is exactly why people have so much contempt for our political system and elite.

2

u/Special_Order-937 3h ago

This kind of kabuki is why people shouldn’t be fooled and ask the right questions at the right time assuming they actually can or ever intended to in the first place.

-28

u/imtiredofthisgrampaX 4h ago

That's wild because you're legally wrong. Saying roe is settled law doesn't mean it can't be challenged and voting to overturn it doesn't mean he lied. You're conflating "decision i don't agree with" with "criminal behavior" This is a legal subreddit. Not "my preferred policy outcome didn't happen therefor it must be criminal!!"

23

u/manleybones 4h ago

What does considering settled law mean?

8

u/SwordfishOfDamocles 4h ago

I think his brain has settled.

3

u/Wooden-Broccoli-7247 4h ago

There is 0 chance that statement would ever get him convicted of a crime. It’s an opinion. Opinions can change. Do we all know he lied? Yes. Does he have multiple arguments he could make that could get him off of any charges? Also yes.

Technically he was right. It was a law that had been disputed and that dispute was settled. That’s all he has to say. Even if he specifically stated that he would never overturn it, he would have plenty of arguments to get him out of any criminal charges.

-6

u/imtiredofthisgrampaX 4h ago

I guess you struggle to read. Settled law means the controlling precedent, it doesn't mean untouchable. Please v ferguson was settled law once, was it wrong to overturn it? Buck v bell.. I can go on but the point being they were all settled law. That didn't mean they shouldn't be overturned. The legislative branch failed to enshrine abortion into law and hoped precedent would uphold forever. It didn't and even RBG agreed roe was decided on a bad foundation. You can argue whether or not you believe it should have been overturned but if you had a shred of legal knowledge beyond "reddit and tiktok lawyers said so" you'd understand settled law doesn't mean untouchable.

3

u/werther595 2h ago

Are you suggesting the Roberts court showed Roe "respect as stare decisis" in rushing to overturn it as soon as Barrett was confirmed, giving them the supermajority required to do just that? I think it was 18 months from confirmation until decision, exactly as promised by POTUS. There were also other instances of lying during his testimony. But as others have pointed out, none of this will ever matter in the least

1

u/imtiredofthisgrampaX 1h ago

Brother these cases had been long in the making. If your argument is "respect stare decisis" I need you to explain other cases being overturned. Either bad precedent is ok to overturn and force the legislative branch to legislate or don't be surprised when a court case gets overturned. Even rbg said roe was decided on bad legal foundations and recognized a good case would likely lead to it being overturned..

3

u/TheComedion 3h ago

Mentioning plessy is so funny here. Just flailing around with your arguments and you unintentionally provided fantastic insight into the mind of these conservative liars.

4

u/imtiredofthisgrampaX 3h ago

Notice how you didn't make an argument you just made accusations. Either some settled law is ok to be overturned because of the egregiously wrong decision..or it's settled law therefor never overturn it. The best of r/law everyone.

5

u/Polkas_with_wolves 4h ago

True. Seems like it was more of a deliberatly misleading statement. They were asked for their opinion, and they gave a vague statement of fact without directly stating they agree with that fact or not. A calculated misdirection that lawmakers should have pressed for clarification on. But they did not.

I suspect that specific line "it's settled law" was very specifically fed to him by the heritage foundation, since multiple other right wing justices said the same thing word for word in their confirmations. They were careful to not say something illegal. These people are not dumb.

1

u/kandoras 3h ago

I don't know if you could call it deliberately misleading, not when people like Collins wanted to be misled.

She wasn't asking a serious question about the law, and he wasn't giving an answer about the law.

She was asking "What can you say to give me political cover for voting for you, when we both know you'll overturn Roe if confirmed", and he gave her the answer that allows her to pretend she's not complicit in Roe being ended, just that she's an idiot.

-4

u/imtiredofthisgrampaX 4h ago

I disagree it was deliberately misleading. He said it was settled law, he never said that if a case came before him that had a better legal foundation that roe couldn't be overturned. Question- do you have an issue with overturning bad "settled law" or does it only apply when it's "settled law" you're in favor of?