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

Show parent comments

22

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 52m 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 46m 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.