[Cboldt]

Was Scumer actually saying /advocating the position that "stare decisis" should trump the Constitution? IOW, that an unconstitutional law, long on the books, ( i.e. Roe) should be left alone?

Yes. And Alito's answer might be misconstrued as "in agreement" depending on how you interpret it. Discussed at http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=2071. Has no impact on confirmation, but may give traditionalists some (temporary, IMO) heartburn.

Can anyone explain what is the impact/meaning of "findings" ...

Congressional findings that justify their creation of law. The Federal Government can only make law that is within the powers granted to it under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has to justify that its laws comport with the grant of power in the Constitution.

Sessions picked up on this very well - most of the discussion was related to Rybar, the machine gun case. Sessions suggested that the law should be amended to address this infirmity, and all would go on hunky dory. Sessions used example of stolen car laws, and how federal law can get involved in that.

[Carolinamom]

Thanks for your cogent explanations. As a non-lawyer, I need them!

[ken5050]

as always, thanks..

[Raycpa]

“I don’t agree with the idea that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis.”

Would you want to be on record with an "always statement" if you were about to become a SC justice? The law is about exceptions. If it were not so, we could use computers.