.


From where I stand, I see the forces of good and evil in a raging confrontation and our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" hanging in the balance.

Is this not what the fight is really about with regard to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices?

On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as "the rule of law" regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

On the one hand we have a system of government controlled and regulated by a written constitution which the people have agreed to, and may be altered only be its Amendment Process, which requires the people's consent as prescribed therein. On the other hand the constitution becomes a meaningless document, perverted by figure heads to accomplish nefarious goals which the people, through their Constitution, have forbidden.

So, when all is said and done, is this fight not about preserving and protecting our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and defending it against those who would use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as “the rule of law”?

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.