美國是判例法係，以先前案例判案。說Roe是先例，是anchor of law, 又reaffirmed, 你說什麽意思？

在聽證會上有表達過“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start"一絲一毫的意嗎？這不是撒謊又是什麽？

同樣來自你提供的資料：

In the exchange, Gorsuch acknowledged that the Supreme Court had held that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, a legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade.

"Do you accept that?" asked Durbin.

"That is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes," Gorsuch replied.

現在全推翻了？liar!

所有跟帖： 

• 你說呢，難道先例不能推翻嗎？為什麽這些法官麵對這些問題擇詞那麽謹慎，很多時候不正麵回答，你以為那麽容易叫你抓漏洞？ -未完的歌- ♂ (1503 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 14:49:58

• 先例是可以推翻， 但是在判決中占有極大的權重。如果需要推翻慎重的考慮, 何況Roe是經過幾十次判決反複認證過的法律。 -SwiperTheFox- ♂ (532 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:10:38

• 在聽證會上，為什麽他們不說和回避這是“super precedent." 你看不出來？ -未完的歌- ♂ (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:19:17

• 我聽不聽出來不是關鍵，關鍵他們是撒了謊， 比如Susan Collin 和 Murkowski 相信了他們， 投了讚成票 -SwiperTheFox- ♂ (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:29:51

• 不懂法就說別人撒謊，哈哈。 -未完的歌- ♂ (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:42:26

• 懂法的也都說大法官們沒有integrity和honesty -alwaysluck- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:33:34