Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

[80zephyr]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.

Not quibbling over this any further.

Can I ask a question? What do you see as the limits of judicial review? Don't say "the Constitution" because it is clear you don't believe that based on your statements.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

White flag accepted

When and if you care to discuss the rules of constitutional construction, i.e., the rules used to determine what out Constitution means when there is a question as to its meaning, get back to me.

JWK




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Then what are the rules? Is there a rule book for interpreting the Constitution? Lets se it.

If there aren't any rules, what is to stop the court from stifling free speech, or a free press? Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.

Not quibbling over this any further.

Can I ask a question? What do you see as the limits of judicial review? Don't say "the Constitution" because it is clear you don't believe that based on your statements.

Mark

Can you be more specific. I’m going to surmise you don’t mean four justices agreeing to grant cert to hear a case?

 

[80zephyr]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.

Not quibbling over this any further.

Can I ask a question? What do you see as the limits of judicial review? Don't say "the Constitution" because it is clear you don't believe that based on your statements.

Mark

Can you be more specific. I’m going to surmise you don’t mean four justices agreeing to grant cert to hear a case?

What are the limits of judicial review if its not the Constitution?

Mark

 

[Jets]

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

This debate is getting circular, it is an opinion. Disagreeing with Scalias methodology does not render it wrong or incorrect.

No. The debate is not circular. You simply do not accept the constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law", and, the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution's provisions were adopted. To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Nope, you promulgate the emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. There is no one correct way to interpret the Constitution no matter how many times you apply a hidebound methodology to make your case.

Dismissed

So now you are going to resort to a stupid debating trick ____ exaggerating your opponent's position and continue to refuse to address what is written.

No. I did not promulgate an emphasis on common law as the end all to interpretation. I stated a fact: our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.


Now, what exactly have I written above do you object to, and why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Because it dismisses textualism. Original intent and legislative intent are a PART of the process.

Stop beating around the bush. We are talking about abiding by our Constitution and our constitution requires an adherence to "the rules of the common law". I also established the most fundamental rule under the "rules of the common law" is to adhere to legislative intent.

I then went on to point out:

To not follow this rule, and allow a judge or Justice to parse the meaning of terms or words in our Constitution in a manner which renders an outcome not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs with which the terms or words were added to our Constitution, would make our Constitution a meaningless document and allow the Court to do for the people that which the people were unwilling to do, or did not do for themselves. In fact, it would allow our judicial branch of government to assume legislative functions by giving meaning to words and terms never intended by the legislature.

Yes! There is no question we are to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, we are to gather its meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning. And that is the extent to which "textualism" is valid.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

And now we are on the same page. Where we will part ways is the conclusion reached by the court. Just so we are clear, I support the dissents reasoning for their opinion, but I support the outcome reached by the majority. Could the legislature have made amendments to make this more clear, of course.

So, you embrace judicial tyranny? Or, are you agreeing the Majority opinion violates the defined and limited grants of power found in our Constitution, and you are fine with that?

JWK

Option 2

If the choice is between a narrow originalist interpretation of the word “sex” or broad textual view to expand civil rights, I choose the latter.

The choice is not between the labels you conjure up. We are talking about abiding by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

Justices and judges are bound to follow the "text" of the Constitution. But whenever a question arises as to the meaning of a word or phrase found in our constitution, our judges and Justices are to determine their meaning from the debates during which time the word or phrase was added to our Constitution, which gives context to its meaning.

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, we are talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as the rule of law.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

You have your opinion and I have mine. Think we are done here.

We are not talking about "opinions". We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Nope, you have a perspective and so do I. Obviously, someone needs the last word here, so take it and have a nice day.

We are not talking about differences in perspectives. We are talking about the rules of constitutional construction and members of our Supreme Court violating those rules.

Why do you find it necessary to deflect?

JWK

No deflection at all. You are entitled to your OPINION on how a justice should interpret the Constitution. The problem is that the SC did not do what you wanted.

Not quibbling over this any further.

Can I ask a question? What do you see as the limits of judicial review? Don't say "the Constitution" because it is clear you don't believe that based on your statements.

Mark

Can you be more specific. I’m going to surmise you don’t mean four justices agreeing to grant cert to hear a case?

What are the limits of judicial review if its not the Constitution?

Mark

That would be determined on a case by case basis. The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution. That said, The SC should give as broad a reading as possible regarding law and constitutional text. I do not agree with a narrow interpretation which requires and applies strict original intent.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

White flag accepted

When and if you care to discuss the rules of constitutional construction, i.e., the rules used to determine what out Constitution means when there is a question as to its meaning, get back to me.

JWK




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Then what are the rules? Is there a rule book for interpreting the Constitution? Lets se it.

If there aren't any rules, what is to stop the court from stifling free speech, or a free press? Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

Technically nothing, But that won't happen , unless this country go totally over the cliff into a dictatorship, which Trump is aiming for. But the fact is that this country has a long history of expanding rights, of granting new rights. The idea of constricting and revoking is antithetical to everything that we stand for. Plus there is no way that the court could circumvent the first amendment in such a blatant ,unconstitutional way and maintain the legitimacy of the court and not provoke the wrath of the majority of the populace. Your question is nothing more than a nonsensical red herring logical fallacy

 

[johnwk]

White flag accepted

When and if you care to discuss the rules of constitutional construction, i.e., the rules used to determine what out Constitution means when there is a question as to its meaning, get back to me.

JWK




The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Then what are the rules? Is there a rule book for interpreting the Constitution? Lets se it.

Our Constitution recognizes and commands [see Amendment 7] an adherence to “the rules of the common law”.


The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the rules of the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce it, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).


Those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and "the rules of the common law", are fully away of what is stated in American Jurisprudence:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, but are tied to adhering to the text our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[johnwk]

As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations ___ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind ___ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin

Fuk you, you picked him


Dont like him, replace him with Garland

No, fuck you, you evil thing! We've had our fill of you fascists and right about now a murderous civil war looks mighty inviting, I really have had it with democrats and treachery, and bad news for you fascist, I am joined in that by tens of millions who want every fucking one of you extirpated from the continent!

Rightwinger simply cannot admit he/she is wrong!


But the fact is in the instant case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislature was addressing a specific evil with respect to “sex” . . . perceived discrimination between men and women in the workplace. For Gorsuch to add groups, who engage in sexual deviant behavior, to the meaning of “sex” within the CRA of 1964, is to do exactly what he admittedly condemns ____ “… amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. … And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

In fact, Gorsuch’s actions have indeed allowed our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

 

[johnwk]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

 

[Jets]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Already accepted your white flag.

Dismissed

 

[johnwk]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Already accepted your white flag.

Dismissed

So, as is usually the case with you, you run and hide, perhaps because of your ignorance on the issues.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

 

[Jets]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Already accepted your white flag.

Dismissed

So, as is usually the case with you, you run and hide, perhaps because of your ignorance on the issues.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Think whatever you want. Goroush and the court majority rendered an opinion you DISAGREED with.

All you have are cherry picked quotes to support a biased OPINION. Arguing with someone who posts OPINIONS as FACTS is a waste of time to argue with.

Considered yourself schooled.

 

[johnwk]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Already accepted your white flag.

Dismissed

So, as is usually the case with you, you run and hide, perhaps because of your ignorance on the issues.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Think whatever you want. Goroush and the court majority rendered an opinion you DISAGREED with.

As I have DOCUMENTED in the OP, Gorsuch's opinion is not in harmony with the text of our Constitution, nor the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which gives context to its text.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

 

[Jets]

The SC should not invalidate legislation passed by states or Congress unless it specifically violates the constitution.

And in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch lied, ignored our written Constitution, and applied the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, to our Constitution.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Already accepted your white flag.

Dismissed

So, as is usually the case with you, you run and hide, perhaps because of your ignorance on the issues.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Think whatever you want. Goroush and the court majority rendered an opinion you DISAGREED with.

As I have DOCUMENTED in the OP, Gorsuch's opinion is not in harmony with the text of our Constitution, nor the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, which adopted, gives context to its text.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

That is your OPINION. “harmony” is a subjective term. Goroush relied on the text of the law in question and found it did NOT conflict with the Constitution. That is his OPINION.

See how that works...

 

[johnwk]

That is your OPINION.

The DOCUMENTATION I provided in the OP are historical facts, and they refute Justices Gorsuch's Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to the meaning of "sex' as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, and contemporary news accounts of the Act, confirms Senator Howard added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace.

But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex. Of course, attempts have been made over the years starting in the 1920s to add an amendment to the United States Constitution granting such power to Congress, e.g.,

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”

But such attempts have repeatedly failed.

So, where does Congress get the authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people refuse to grant such power to Congress?


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

 

[Jets]

That is your OPINION.

The DOCUMENTATION I provided in the OP are historical facts, and they refute Justices Gorsuch's Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to the meaning of "sex' as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, and contemporary news accounts of the Act, confirms Senator Howard added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace.

But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex. Of course, attempts have been made over the years starting in the 1920s to add an amendment to the United States Constitution granting such power to Congress, e.g.,

“Article  —

“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”

But such attempts have repeatedly failed.

So, where does Congress get the authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people refuse to grant such power to Congress?


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

Cherry picking quotes to support your reactionary position are OPINIONS NOT FACTS.

Get back to me when you know the difference.

 

[Flash]

Our Founding Fathers knew that sooner or later our Liberties would be sold down the river by the filth in government. They knew we couldn't trust the Legislative, Executive or Judicial Branches of government to protect us.

This case is a great example. Judicial activists making up shit that isn't in the Constitution. These clowns suppose to have gone to Law School but they don't know jackshit about the law.

That is why we have the Second Amendment.

 

[Flash]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

 

[skews13]

This was the sole reason why I voted for Trump, Gorsuch's treachery in this naked piece of judicial legislation is profound and irrevocable. I'd absolutely love to see him, and Roberts turn up dead, and why is it that republicans, unlike democrats, never see to that for us, as Obama did with Scalia? I cannot be any more explicit, I would consider Roberts, and Gorsuch's deaths as extraordinarily satisfying, these creatures are fucking evil and need to be extirpated from our society! Mark my words, next up both of these evil fucking creatures slam-dunk The Little Sisters of the Poor for Obama, who hates them!

So your stupid ass thinks Obama had Scalia killed?

My god you Trumpers are astronomical bitches....

Just bitches

 

[skews13]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution tht says it is the duty of the Federal government to protect Negroes, queers and transexuals against discrmination.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.