Alito, Thomas, Ginsberg, etc. have all testified under oath before Congress.  If they lie during that testimony, isn't that an impeachable offense?

So if Alito says that he believes that one person one vote is settled law and ought not to be changed, then he makes a ruling to change it, wouldn't this be a lie?  And if Thomas has a history of ruling/writing against Roe v Wade, then says he would judge cases regarding Roe with an open mind, and then never supports it, didn't he lie?  Where is the evidence of the open mind?

The thing is, these guys can say whatever they damn well please to Schumer and Kennedy and unless it is an egregious lie about a fact (like I have a degree from Harvard, when it's really from the University of SE Guam Law School) then there is no recourse.

(By now, I know many of you are shaking your heads at my naivete.  Of course, I realize that the easy answer is something like, (1) "future scenarios may prove that current precedent no longer applies" or (2) "...applies only in certain situations" or (3) "my opinion as things stand now is that 1p1vote was settled, but I may be persuaded otherwise due to some unforeseen circumstance.")

So why not ask Alito this very question:  "Judge Alito, if you say to us today that you believe that one person one vote is settled law (or pick another topic), and then you rule against one person one vote, wouldn't we have grounds to impeach you for lying to us today?"

If Alito responds with 1, he demonstrates that he does not particularly respect stare decisus (sp?).  If 2, he demonstrates that he is an activist judge.  If 3, he demonstrates that he won't stand by what he says today and shows this is all a circus act.  (Which, of course, it is.)

(Wonder if anyone will respond to this in an open thread, perhaps this should have been posted elsewhere....)