Our spineless Republican House members, and their refusal to impeach deserving Justices

[johnwk]

.

When has our Republican Party Leadership in Congress ___ the self-proclaimed defenders of “law and order” ___ called for the impeachment and punishment of judges and Justices who have repeatedly and knowingly violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, defied the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and in so doing repeatedly spat upon adhering to the “rules of the common law” requiring an adherence to legislative intent?

While Republican leaders wine and dine our ears to their supposed desire for law and order, they continue to assume the fetal position when our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is set aside, perverted, and overruled, by the very judicial Officers entrusted to support and defend it. Unfortunately, this has been going on for a very long time, but today, the perversions of our Constitution by judges and Justices are more profound, their usurpation of legislative power is more stark and blatant, and an air of omnipotence by judges and Justices reveals they have no fear whatsoever of reprisal for the mischief and tyranny they have engaged in.

The sad truth is, we were amply warned a long time ago about submitting to tyranny:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

So, in view of the recent Gorsuch opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, under what delegation of power found in our Constitution did Congress get the authority in 1964, “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” [The Civil Rights Act of 1964], the forbidding of distinctions in the workplace within “any State on account of sex”, when the people refused to grant such power to Congress and our Constitution is silent in this respect?

Was Madison not correct when he wrote ___ ”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

Or in today’s opinion, with Justice Roberts being the culprit, where is our Supreme Court vested with power to second guess the wisdom or fairness of legislation having to do with abortions? And, especially, how is that regulatory authority vested in our federal government when Hamilton emphatically confirms such power rests with the various United States. He says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ___ Federalist Paper No. 45

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

 

[night_son]

Thank you. The law is where evil "gets us". Circa June 29, 2020 evil rules.

 

[Gdjjr]

Lawyers, judges and law writers are educated beyond their intellect. They are the pseudo intellectual personified pretending omnipotence is a granted authority, and that their brand of understanding an esoteric endeavor, which it actually is since not many can understand their illiteracy or stupidity- they are a perfect example of Public Education. Piss poor comprehension founded in a belief that a sheep skin makes you special-

 

[Gdjjr]

Republicrat. Demopublican. Not a dimes worth of difference-

What is it called when doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

 

[johnwk]

Thank you. The law is where evil "gets us". Circa June 29, 2020 evil rules.

Let us not forget impeachment of a Justice was all the rave among our communist/socialist democrats when Kavanaugh was confirmed for the Supreme Court. SEE: Impeaching Kavanaugh rouses progressive Democrats after confirmation

"The movement could pick up steam if the party wins the House in November, but some legal scholars warn it's a terrible idea."



"WASHINGTON — Even before Brett Kavanaugh won the Senate's consent to ascend to the Supreme Court, liberals started looking for ways to remove him.



A petition to impeach Kavanaugh has gathered over 125,000 signatures, progressive groups have raised money to expel him from the federal bench and a key Democratic lawmaker has promised to investigate the judge if the party retakes the House in November."


Of course, these frothing-from-the-mouth types were incapable of establishing why Kavanaugh was allegedly a threat to the rule of law, unlike Justice Roberts has confirmed he himself is such a threat.

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Republicrat. Demopublican. Not a dimes worth of difference-

What is it called when doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

I don't always agree with you

but when I do....I give a thumbs up!

 

[22lcidw]

And the Progs were worried. Endless Repub judges do an about face for some reason You would think they were moles by degree.

 

[johnwk]

Republicrat. Demopublican. Not a dimes worth of difference-

What is it called when doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

As applied to the future of our Country, and re-electing those who do us harm? It’s called suicide!

JWK

 

[johnwk]

And the Progs were worried. Endless Repub judges do an about face for some reason You would think they were moles by degree.

But having loyal and patriotic Americans in the House drawing up articles of impeachment, would at least shine the light on a tyrant such as Roberts. We need to have this conversation, but our spineless Republicans are more interested in joining hands with the communist/socialist Democrat Party Leadership than representing those who elected them.


JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

 

[progressive hunter]

.

When has our Republican Party Leadership in Congress ___ the self-proclaimed defenders of “law and order” ___ called for the impeachment and punishment of judges and Justices who have repeatedly and knowingly violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, defied the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and in so doing repeatedly spat upon adhering to the “rules of the common law” requiring an adherence to legislative intent?

While Republican leaders wine and dine our ears to their supposed desire for law and order, they continue to assume the fetal position when our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is set aside, perverted, and overruled, by the very judicial Officers entrusted to support and defend it. Unfortunately, this has been going on for a very long time, but today, the perversions of our Constitution by judges and Justices are more profound, their usurpation of legislative power is more stark and blatant, and an air of omnipotence by judges and Justices reveals they have no fear whatsoever of reprisal for the mischief and tyranny they have engaged in.

The sad truth is, we were amply warned a long time ago about submitting to tyranny:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

So, in view of the recent Gorsuch opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, under what delegation of power found in our Constitution did Congress get the authority in 1964, “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” [The Civil Rights Act of 1964], the forbidding of distinctions in the workplace within “any State on account of sex”, when the people refused to grant such power to Congress and our Constitution is silent in this respect?

Was Madison not correct when he wrote ___ ”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

Or in today’s opinion, with Justice Roberts being the culprit, where is our Supreme Court vested with power to second guess the wisdom or fairness of legislation having to do with abortions? And, especially, how is that regulatory authority vested in our federal government when Hamilton emphatically confirms such power rests with the various United States. He says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ___ Federalist Paper No. 45

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

what else do you expect from our left wing republican party,,,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

.

When has our Republican Party Leadership in Congress ___ the self-proclaimed defenders of “law and order” ___ called for the impeachment and punishment of judges and Justices who have repeatedly and knowingly violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, defied the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and in so doing repeatedly spat upon adhering to the “rules of the common law” requiring an adherence to legislative intent?

While Republican leaders wine and dine our ears to their supposed desire for law and order, they continue to assume the fetal position when our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is set aside, perverted, and overruled, by the very judicial Officers entrusted to support and defend it. Unfortunately, this has been going on for a very long time, but today, the perversions of our Constitution by judges and Justices are more profound, their usurpation of legislative power is more stark and blatant, and an air of omnipotence by judges and Justices reveals they have no fear whatsoever of reprisal for the mischief and tyranny they have engaged in.

The sad truth is, we were amply warned a long time ago about submitting to tyranny:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

So, in view of the recent Gorsuch opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, under what delegation of power found in our Constitution did Congress get the authority in 1964, “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” [The Civil Rights Act of 1964], the forbidding of distinctions in the workplace within “any State on account of sex”, when the people refused to grant such power to Congress and our Constitution is silent in this respect?

Was Madison not correct when he wrote ___ ”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

Or in today’s opinion, with Justice Roberts being the culprit, where is our Supreme Court vested with power to second guess the wisdom or fairness of legislation having to do with abortions? And, especially, how is that regulatory authority vested in our federal government when Hamilton emphatically confirms such power rests with the various United States. He says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ___ Federalist Paper No. 45

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

What law did anyone of them break? Just because you disagree is NOT grounds for impeachment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And the Progs were worried. Endless Repub judges do an about face for some reason You would think they were moles by degree.

But having loyal and patriotic Americans in the House drawing up articles of impeachment, would at least shine the light on a tyrant such as Roberts. We need to have this conversation, but our spineless Republicans are more interested in joining hands with the communist/socialist Democrat Party Leadership than representing those who elected them.


JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

What law did he break? You just don't like the decision. Are you always going to impeach anyone who makes an unpopular decision?

 

[johnwk]

What law did anyone of them break? Just because you disagree is NOT grounds for impeachment.

We are not talking about decisions I don't like per se. We are talking about opinions of the court which violate the rules of constitutional construction and judges and Justices violating those rules while imposing their personal sense fairness, justice and reasonableness as the rule of law, which happens to be judicial tyranny!

One example I often use to illustrate a blatant disregard for the meaning of words and phrases found in our Constitution as they were understood by those who framed and adopted the Constitution is found in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),

In reading the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society” even though a fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) ___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:



"While many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.



The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Majority took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!



On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional construction and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:



”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”


And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?


“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…" (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


So, as it turns out, it is not about opinions I don't like. My objection is judges and Justices working to defeat the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and the majority imposing their personal predilections upon the people, and doing so without the people’s consent via our Constitution’s amendment process.


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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What law did anyone of them break? Just because you disagree is NOT grounds for impeachment.

We are not talking about decisions I don't like per se. We are talking about opinions of the court which violate the rules of constitutional construction and judges and Justices violating those rules while imposing their personal sense fairness, justice and reasonableness as the rule of law, which happens to be judicial tyranny!

One example I often use to illustrate a blatant disregard for the meaning of words and phrases found in our Constitution as they were understood by those who framed and adopted the Constitution is found in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),

In reading the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society” even though a fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) ___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:



"While many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.



The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Majority took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!



On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional construction and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:



”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”


And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?


“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…" (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


So, as it turns out, it is not about opinions I don't like. My objection is judges and Justices working to defeat the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and the majority imposing their personal predilections upon the people, and doing so without the people’s consent via our Constitution’s amendment process.


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.

Awww... Too bad that is not an impeachable offense of anyone dissenting would automatically be subject to impeachment

 

[johnwk]

What law did anyone of them break? Just because you disagree is NOT grounds for impeachment.

We are not talking about decisions I don't like per se. We are talking about opinions of the court which violate the rules of constitutional construction and judges and Justices violating those rules while imposing their personal sense fairness, justice and reasonableness as the rule of law, which happens to be judicial tyranny!

One example I often use to illustrate a blatant disregard for the meaning of words and phrases found in our Constitution as they were understood by those who framed and adopted the Constitution is found in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),

In reading the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice Stevens actually indicates the Court will ignore the meaning of “public use” as it was understood when our Constitution was adopted, justifying such tyranny because of the “evolving needs of society” even though a fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) ___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:



"While many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.



The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Majority took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!



On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional construction and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:



”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”


And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?


“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…" (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


So, as it turns out, it is not about opinions I don't like. My objection is judges and Justices working to defeat the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and the majority imposing their personal predilections upon the people, and doing so without the people’s consent via our Constitution’s amendment process.


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.

Awww... Too bad that is not an impeachable offense of anyone dissenting would automatically be subject to impeachment

Thank you for your opinion but a judge or Justice who repeatedly violates our Constitution's fundamental rules is guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance and even non-feasance. Of course, there are those who have no interest in judges and Justices being bound by the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. You appear to be one of them.

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.

 

[johnwk]

I see our "Admiral" has taken leave. Wonder why. Have truth and facts gotten in his way?

JWK

 

[whitehall]

Do you really want to try to impeach a Supreme Court Justice over a decision you don't agree with or are you trolling for angry idiots like yourself?

 

[johnwk]

Do you really want to try to impeach a Supreme Court Justice over a decision you don't agree with or are you trolling for angry idiots like yourself?

You apparently have not followed the thread. When you do, get back to me.

JWK