Justices Sotomayor and Kagan should be impeached, removed from office, allowing Trump to nominate two new S.C. Justices

[johnwk]

Only marginally.

Roberts is a wind sock, Coney-Barrett has NFI, and Kavanaugh has a shitty civil liberties record.

Having listened, many times, to our Senate questioning nominees to gain a favorable "advice and consent" from the Senate, I have never, even once, heard them ask a nominee to explain, in detail, how does one determine the true meaning of a provision of our Constitution when it becomes the focus of a case before the Supreme Court? I bring up this point because a Senate Report, during the 42 Congress, answered that question in crystal clear language:

"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),


The sad truth is, our Senate has become a worthless wind-bagging club for the elderly, beholden to major donors .

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.

 

[johnwk]

Have Justices Kagan and Sotomayor engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance resulting in an injustice being inflicted on Kim Davis?


It seems to me our Supreme Court including Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V [with the people's consent] is the only lawful way to alter the enforceable terms and conditions our Constitution?



So, how did Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges determine that our federal Constitution forbids the States from making distinctions in law based upon sex?

A reason why I ask the above questions is, a Senate Report in 1872, during the 42 Congress, answered the above question in crystal clear language:

“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),

And, our very own Supreme Court emphatically provides a procedure answering the same question:

“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)

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Now, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it now crystal clear that Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , in essence, set themselves up (along with three other S.C. Justices) as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution?

Do the actions of these two, Kagan and Sotomayor, not fall within the four walls of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in wrongfully letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license?

 

[johnwk]

.Bradwell v. The State appears to still be good law, and it essentially confirmed a State has authority to make distinctions based upon sex, and that refusing to issue a license based upon sex violates no provision of the federal Constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and are still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

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)

I believe it was chief justice John Roberts who wrote the majority opinion.
Citing the 14th amendments requirements that states provide all the privileges and immunities as is required under law. It was no different than Loving v Virginia.
Or simple contract law, where you can't have a contract recognized in some states, but ruled invalid in other states After all, such an idea is what broke apart the united states.
.

 

[meaner gene]

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

True there is no constitutional amendment granting equal rights (non discrimination by gender) but federal law is ripe with such laws. And as federal law binds under the supremacy clause, such discrimination may be constitutional, but is still illegal under the federal laws applicable to every state and territory.

 

[meaner gene]

.Bradwell v. The State appears to still be good law, and it essentially confirmed a State has authority to make distinctions based upon sex, and that refusing to issue a license based upon sex violates no provision of the federal Constitution.

There are many things prohibited by state and federal laws, which are permissible under the Constitution.
Things like child labor, or corporal punishment of children.

 

[excalibur]

Kentaji needs to go. She can’t even define what a woman is.

And her seat on the DC Circuit was taken [given] to another minority leftoid female. One Florence Pan by name.

 

[johnwk]

I believe it was chief justice John Roberts who wrote the majority opinion.
Citing the 14th amendments requirements that states provide all the privileges and immunities as is required under law. It was no different than Loving v Virginia.
Or simple contract law, where you can't have a contract recognized in some states, but ruled invalid in other states After all, such an idea is what broke apart the united states.
.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say, nor how it applies to the subject.

BTW Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges

 

[johnwk]

There are many things prohibited by state and federal laws, which are permissible under the Constitution.
Things like child labor, or corporal punishment of children.

How does that apply to what you wrote?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Oh **** off you stupid shit. I mean first of all, why would you give a shit. Seriously, how does it "hurt" you, that two flamers decide to get married. I mean what is your skin in the game?

I mean come on. You got this Kim Davis *****, married four ******* times, to three men. I mean this is a sick ass *****. She gets to call the shots because God somehow appointed her? No, it don't ******* work that way hoss. God sure as hell would n't have appointed her in the first place. White trash skank whore. And that is who you defend. I mean seriously, do you people even think?

You had no counter argument so you went with feelings.

 

[johnwk]

You had no counter argument so you went with feelings.

That's exactly what our FIFTH COLUMN activists do . . . attack the messenger and not the message. It is also an established fact they are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

 

[johnwk]

Schumer's "whirlwind" of fifth-column activists and swamp creatures, turns on him!


I guess Schumer has finally learned the consequences of getting in bed with FIFTH COLUMN activists like Rep. Jasmine Crockett . . . who are now forming a whirlwind to defeat him because he can no longer help them in their movement.

Keep in mind Schumer was a significant vocal supporter of both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan during their respective Supreme Court confirmation processes. And since sitting on the Supreme Court bench, both have worked endlessly to shred our Constitution, inch by inch, as they did in , Obergefell v. Hodges.