I could hardly agree that Congress passing a law, and that law being tested in the courts, is evidence of being subjected to “the whims and fancies” of the ruling class
Also, does it ever give you pause that you seem to always be coming down against the expansion of liberty and the protection of people?
Expansion of liberty and the protection of people?
There is no expansion of liberty when people are not free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. Likewise, there is no protection of the people when an identifiable group is given special protection, which is enforced by the muscle of government.
In any event, I explained my position in the OP, and it is very disturbing when those on our Supreme Court, like Gorsuch, use the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, and apply it 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.
I can only imagine the fevered mind that sees protection from discrimination as somehow oppressive
Perhaps that is because your imagination refuses to embrace a self-evident truth . . . the act of discrimination, is nothing more than exercising a freedom of choice.
JWK
The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
Do you believe there are any forms of discrimination that should be against the law?
My version of America is to leave people free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations . . .which is one of the most basic and fundamental inalienable rights of mankind.
Additionally, I am a devoted supporter of abiding by the text our federal constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, 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
Perhaps I misunderstood, and if so I apologize.
But isn’t it true that, for example, you think that the Equal Rights Act is bad law and unconstitutional?
The “Equal Rights Act” is legislation not authorized by the text of our Constitution, or the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, 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
Right. And this stance amounts to government sanction of bigotry and prejudice. That is not a personal attack on you, it is a statement if fact
I simply do not follow your assertion regarding what I POSTED , “…amounts to government sanction of bigotry and prejudice.”
JWK
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
You don’t support the equal rights amendment: you say it’s not supported by law, and is unconstitutional. I say the equal rights amendment has protected our fellow citizens from bigotry and discrimination.
Therefore, I feel that your stance supports government sanctioned bigotry and discrimination
I’m still trying to figure out how a proposed amendment isn’t authorized legislation. Not sure why my previous post got deleted either.
I say “it’s not supported by law” which is why it’s an amendment. Isn’t that literally the point of adding an amendment? Were the bill of rights already supported by law before being added?
To “unconstitutional” I say how can an amendment be unconstitutional?
That’s a pretty big leap there my friend. How does supporting our Constitution embrace “government sanctioned bigotry and discrimination”, and especially when that very constitution allows for change via its amendment process?
JWK
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Freedom of association <> Freedom to exclude
If it did there would be an exclusion clause along with the association clause.
I have no idea what your comment has to do with Gorsuch condoning a usurpation of power by using the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, and applying it 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.
I have no idea that your lame assertion actually happened. I do know that your earlier assertion “discrimination is merely freedom of choice” is also wrong, so I’ll just go with you being consistent on this one.
Well, I can see you have a desire to personalize the thread rather than respond to the fact that Justice Gorsuch gave his thumb up to a usurpation of power by using the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, and applying it 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.
So, if an Oriental man refuses to marry a Hispanic female, that is “wrong”?
Why do so many detest people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?
JWK
The Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist Revolutionary Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative authority proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Equality Act, is a usurpation of power not granted.
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is as follows:
"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.
"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
“Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”
Note that Section 2 would grant the power which Gorsuch exercised in spite of the American People denying that power to our federal government, and to this degree, Gorsuch acted as judge, jury and executioner . . . so to speak.
JWK
”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
