A serious question for our anti-Kavanaugh protestor crowd

Jul 2015
2,227
1,073
USA
#11
The SCOTUS has been used as a super legislative body that seemingly has no mechanism to correct or simply challenge its decisions. It was design that way under the assumption that the court will be nonpolitical.
Actually, our Supreme Court was specifically limited by the wording in our Constitution to prohibit its members to supplant their personal whims and fancies as being within the text and meaning of our written Constitution. By the text of our Constitution, Supreme Court members are to support and defend "this Constitution" and by another provision they are to adhere to the "rules of the common law". And, the most fundamental rule, under the rules of the common law is to adhere to legislative intent, and not what a Justice feels our Constitution should mean.


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 as 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.


Now, the very reason our Democrat Party Leadership is frothing from their mouths and upset that Brett Kavanaugh has been made a Justice of the Supreme Court is, he may actually follow both the text of our Constitution and its documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text, and that would actually end our Supreme Court from being used to impose its member's personal sense of social justice, fairness, and reasonableness as the rule of law. Why do you think the Democrat socialist Leadership is having a tizzy fit? It may no long be able to use the Supreme Court as a super legislative body, and impose its immoral and unconstitutional desires as the rule of law!

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
 
Nov 2012
5,388
3,219
Kekistan
#12
No, rights are not subject to a vote, period. They are guaranteed by the Constitution. You right wing bigots do not get to decide that other people do not enjoy freedom just because you don’t like them. If you try it, you’ll regret it.

BTW, Kavanaugh just decided that native Americans do no deserve the right to vote. Keep it up, November is coming. Kavanaugh gets no apology. I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire.
Kavanaugh did not even vote on it. You are being ignorant

Newly-minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join in the decision.
The Supreme Court Just Made It Harder for Native Americans to Vote in North Dakota
 
Jul 2015
2,227
1,073
USA
#13
He’s a liar and partisan. We just saw the Supreme Court violate the Constitution by robbing US citizens of the right to vote. But you probably think that’s OK.
You forgot to provide a link to his written opinion proving he was not merely abiding by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent.

:rolleyes:

JWK
 
Jul 2015
2,227
1,073
USA
#16
You forgot to provide a link to his written opinion proving he was not merely abiding by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent.

:rolleyes:

JWK
You never posts links, so don't ask me to either.
Translation: Leekohler2 cannot substantiate the assertion made.


:rolleyes:

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership DECLARES it will only be civil if and when they “win back the House and or the Senate”…. Hillary Clinton, October 9, 2018
 
Dec 2015
13,267
12,114
Arizona
#17
If Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s written opinions conform to the text of our written Constitution, and are in harmony with its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, will you guys apologize for the disgraceful treatment you participated in during his confirmation hearings?


JWK


The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the plain text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

NO. We won't apologize for questioning his character. We won't apologize for asking questions. We won't apologize for vetting him during his job interview. We certainly won't apologize for being appalled by his refusal to answer questions, his claiming victim status and whining like a pre-schooler about screening his job application.
The Supreme Court works for me. I am Kav's employer and if he had applied for a job in my company I would never have hired him.
 
Likes: Lyzza
Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#18
No one has to answer to unsubstantiated claims with zero burden of proof and ten different versions of events other than in China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
 
Nov 2017
1,379
765
Virginia
#19
Because someone called him a liar? If I were to call you a liar, does that somehow automatically make you a liar?

So what is he, a Democrat or Republican? What's your evidence to back up your claim?

We just saw the Supreme Court violate the Constitution by robbing US citizens of the right to vote. But you probably think that’s OK.
Really? So this November 6th 2018 when I go to vote I won't be able to? We'll see. I don't think that would be ok; I would expect only the folks on the Left to think that's ok.
 
Dec 2013
30,357
18,422
Beware of watermelons
#20
how he does his job has NOTHING to do with him being accused by many women of sexual assault. i couldnt care less wtf he does in his stupid robe, he needs to answer for what he did to those women.

period.
He did. He answered a bunch of questions.

Even squeaky voice has said that she wants to drop it.

Maybe you should march down to the police station in the town that the snuggle struggle supposedly occurred and demand justice.