I assume this is supposed to be in response to my post--you have an strong tendency to post in response to things, but never to quote them, leaving it unclear as to what is being responded to. I also notice that, in doing so, you dodged a whole lot of the points I made.
In any event, please show where they "lied through their teeth" on this. Certainly, they talked about the
importance of precedent, but none of them to my knowledge ever said that precedent could never be overturned or that they would never overturn it.
Incidentally, both Sotomayor and Kagan talked up precedent also, then proceeded to urge precedents be overturned. Do you think they were "lying through their teeth" too? Here's Sotomayor's statement from the confirmation hearing (
page 31):
"All precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law, subject to the deference to doctrine of stare decisis would counsel."
This did not stop her from joining or writing majority opinions that overturned prior decisions, such as Ramos v. Louisiana to overturn Apodaca v. Oregon, Alleyne v. United States in to overturn Harris v. United States, Herrera v. Wyoming to overturn Ward v. Race Horse, or Pearson v. Callahan to overturn Saucier v. Katz. There also, no doubt, are various dissents she joined or wrote urging overturn of precedent--here I limited myself to cases where she was actively involved in doing so. So, do you think Sotomayor was lying through her teeth?
Kagan has also overturned prior precedent, even if not as frequently as Sotomayor, given that a number of those decisions I just listed off had her in the majority.
This despite her statement that:
"That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case. So that is settled law."
This was referring specifically to the Heller decision, but she's clearly talking about how there is respect of binding precedent in
any case (after all, she says "any"). So, was Kagan lying through her teeth too?
I'm having a weirdly hard time finding a good transcript of Jackson's hearing to see what she said on precedent, but I don't
think Jackson has yet joined any majority opinion overturning a prior one. She did write a concurring opinion in Rahimi saying she thought Bruen was wrongly decided and would've joined the dissent, but didn't explicitly say she wanted it overturned. There also might've been dissents she joined urging an overturn of something. Regardless, she hasn't been on the court long, so opportunities to overturn haven't really come yet.
Looking through statements the "new Republican justices" made at the confirmations on precedent (some are given
here, though more specifically on an eye on Roe v. Wade), I see nothing any stronger than what we have just seen from Kagan and Sotomayor, who again were, after making those statements, perfectly willing to overturn prior precedent.
So it does not appear that any of the "new Republican justices" ever "lied through their teeth" on this--you certainly provided no evidence they did--and their statements on precedent appear no stronger than that of Sotomayor and Kagan, so it seems you would have to be accusing them of lying through their teeth as well.
Which they didn't do. Also...
There are multiple problems with this pronouncement. First, unless a law actually says "if you are a felon you cannot do this", then there is nothing legally wrong with a felon doing it. So waxing philsophically about whether a felon "should" have a particular power is irrelevant if they actually do have it. If the President has a particular power or privilege, then that applies whether they're a felon or not.
Second, Trump was not even President or even President-elect at the time of the decision. For all anyone knew at the time of the decision, Biden was going to win re-election.
And if the felony conviction is overturned on appeal?
