On the Basis of Sex and Ginsburg’s whims and fancies vs the rule of law


On the Basis of Sex, a movie honoring the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, completely omits her part in subjugating the rule of law, and replacing the meaning of our Constitution with the transient whims and fancies held by a majority of our Supreme Court members.

If there ever was a succinct characterization defining a fundamental rule to determine what a specific provision of our Constitution means, that summation is found in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), when our Supreme Court notes the supremacy of legislative intent:

”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.”

It should also be pointed out that 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."

Indeed, to not anchor our Constitution to the documented intentions and beliefs of the people at the time our Constitution was adopted, and allow the mere whims and fancies of seven members on our Supreme Court to masquerade as “the rule of law", is to destroy the very reason for having a written Constitution, and is acquiescing to the personal predilections which a majority on our Court dictates is “the rule of law”. And this is the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ___ a subjugation of our written Constitution and the rule of law! Let me explain.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg asserted a party seeking to make a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg asserted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

Of course, these parameters are Ginsburg’s personal desires. They are not part of our Constitution or the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. Making distinctions based upon sex was never intended to be forbidden under the 14th Amendment, nor does its text remotely suggest our Constitution is violated if the citizens of a state make distinctions based upon sex. The 14th Amendment merely declares, whatever laws a state may adopt, it may not “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of …” those specific laws. Its laws must be enforced equally!

As a matter of fact, the American people specifically addressed Ginsburg’s desires in the 1980s when a proposed amendment to our Constitution, which would have forbidden the people of a state to make distinctions based upon “sex”, was rejected! And yet, Justice Ginsburg and six other members of the Court, overruled our Constitution’s exclusive method [Article V] to alter our Constitution to accommodate perceived changing times, and she, along with six others, took it upon themselves to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law. [1]

So, for all those who go to see “On the Basis of Sex”, keep in mind it is the latest piece of propaganda created by Hollywood’s Fifth Column activists to glorify a member of our Supreme Court who has used her office of public trust to tear down what the people of America knowingly and willingly agreed to when adopting a written constitution.

[1] Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.


"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. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

If the plot of the movie takes place before Ginsburg became a Supreme Court Justice, then why would the movie concern itself with your opinion of her time serving on the Supreme Court?


I don’t know what you said, but I sure like the way you said it. :+1:

Why did you waste money to go see a movie you knew you’d hate before you even put butter on the popcorn?

Why does that matter?

Right, it’s worded much more broadly than that.

This is one of your most strained readings. Only your “a ‘tax on income’ is not the same thing as an income tax” interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment and your charge of Obama committing treason by giving Guantanamo Bay detainees trials are more strained than this.

1 Like

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. Now, let us review what the first section of the 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The law must be enforced equally upon every “person” .


John, every charge you have ever made of some federal judge or Supreme Court Justice of making a ruling or rulings according to their “personal whims and fancies” has been unsubstantiated. You have never actually made an argument or provided any evidence that, at the time of the making of whatever ruling you have questioned, these people believed that their ruling was not in accord with they believed to be a correct interpretation of the constitution.

Furthermore, the particular accusation you like to make of federal judges, that they rule according to their “personal views”, is in reality nonsensical. Any view that person has on what they believe to be the “true” meaning of the constitution is going to be a personal view!


None of this anything new. Make a different argument because you are just repeating yourself.

So, if someone writes an amendment that’s a “Blue shirts are illegal.”, but they really intend that to mean “Red shirts are illegal.”, then the “true” meaning of the amendment is that all shirts colored blue are illegal? That’s nonsense.

Exactly. No desire to see it.

Another interesting point regarding this “movie” [Hollywood’s propaganda] is, it was used as a fundraiser for the ACLU!


“Gathr Films, Focus Features, and Participant Media have set Jan. 9 screenings for “On the Basis of Sex” at 500 theaters with the opportunity for ticket buyers to contribute to the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project.”


The ACLU is an organization that defends peoples rights, so why are you against it?

Imagine that, an organization where she co-founded the Women’s Rights Project in 1972, is using this film as a fundraiser… It’s almost like she has some history with the ACLU

Except for the second amendment right.

I think the ACLU’s position has been rather mute on the 2nd. I believe there is another large organization that defends the second. Should the ACLU expend effort on it when it does not appear needed?

And how do liberals feel about that other large organization that you won’t even name?

?? I’m a lib and I support gun rights. But I think the NRA goes too far.

I don’t recall the ACLU stepping in and defending the right of the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner’s inalienable right to mutually agree in its contract with a sexual deviant couple. As a matter of fact they stepped in to forbid the Cakeshop’s owner to exercise one of mankind’s most fundamental rights ___ the right to mutually agree in one’s contracts and associations.


Gathr Films, Focus Features, and Participant Media, part of Hollywood’s propaganda machine, not the ACLU, used “this film as a fundraiser” for the ACLU.


One of mankind’s most fundamental rights is the right to mutually agree in contracts and associations, a right despised by the intolerant ACLU and those who work to destroy our free market system.

I’d say most Americans, be they liberal or otherwise, are rightfully concerned over how chummy that organization is with a hostile foreign government in Russia.