Advice from Lin Wood on Political Action

[caroljane]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

This is so wrong. It is crap.

And I don't feel like looking it up, making quotes, etc., just to play gotcha.

I read about this a day or two ago and Sidney did not say ""no reasonable person" would believe the conspiracy theory about the company's voting machines."

She said no reasonable person would take her evidence as statements of fact. I don't recall the exact jargon, but that was her meaning.

She's a lawyer. A fact has to be ascertained in a court of law for her.

A statement in a pleading is not a fact--in the courts--until there has been judicial review.

That's what she was referring to.

Michael

 I will take your word about what Sidney said.I was  referring to  to what her lawyers wrote in this statement in her defence.

i wasn't aware that believing a theory, or taking it as a statement of fact,had to be regarded as two different things.

Once again, I do not write crap . (Or at least not the type of crap you accuse me of)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Three posts from Lin Wood -

I haven’t read the Epoch Times piece yet.

I think Lin is quoting Sidney in the third post and forgot to use quote marks.

 

Quote

Lin Wood

A review of this Epoch Times article on Sidney Powell’s motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit will clarify propaganda media misrepresentations of the motion. 

By the way, Dominion’s lawyer, Tom Clare, also represents Bill Gates. 

Just sayin.’

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/sidney-powell-seeks-to-dismiss-dominions-1-3-billion-lawsuit_3744810.html

The Epoch Times

Sidney Powell Seeks to Dismiss Dominion’s $1.3 Billion Lawsuit

Attorney Sidney Powell, who filed third-party lawsuits to aid former President Donald Trump in his post-election legal fight, ...

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1122

14.5KviewsMar 23 at 16:32

Quote

Lin Wood

Sidney Powell will never quit. Ignore the propaganda media.

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1123

5.3KviewsMar 23 at 20:07

Quote

Lin Wood

The #FakeNews is lying to everyone about our filings in the Dominion case. My position has not changed. We will be taking them to the mat. Sidney

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1124

5.3KviewsMar 23 at 20:07

Ellen

[caroljane]

I used to read the Epoch Times occasionallyyears ago when it was distributed free from convenience stores etc., also sold by the homeless sometimes. I tried to read the article but they wanted my email before I could read it, and I don't need to get on anymore mailing li sts

 

[caroljane]

incidentally there were a lot of Falun Gong in my neighbourhood, and I even marched in one of their parades. It was beautiful and deeply impressive.

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, caroljane said:

I give you that respect.

 

It's not who you believe it's what you believe and why. In the hunt for facts and conclusions I don't believe anybody primarily. There are some anybodies I'm inclined to believe--to a point. I'm a profound sceptic searching for truth(full conclusions) not for ad h. debunking. I never line up pretty soldiers all in a row and conclude all soldiers are pretty (nice or whatever).

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I haven’t read the Epoch Times piece yet.

 

10 hours ago, caroljane said:

I tried to read the article

It's a short article. Read it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210324021132/https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/sidney-powell-seeks-to-dismiss-dominions-1-3-billion-lawsuit_3744810.html

 

btw - Whenever there is a news article behind a paywall or a demand for email, the trick is to go to https://archive.vn/, which is widely displayed as archive.today, but redirects to archive.vn.(I suggest you bookmark that link to access future paywall articles.)

Copy the URL and, on archive.vn, paste it into the SECOND field called "I want to search the archive for saved snapshots." Most of the time, the article will appear.

If it doesn't, a page appears with the alternatives below:

• search this url in Google Cache
• search this url in Archive.Org
• search this url in WebCite
• search this url in Megalodon

For the article above, when I did the normal search on archive.vn it did not appear. So I clicked on Google Cache and the article was there, but I did not like the formatting. I clicked on archive.org and there it was in all its glory. (For those who do this, at archive.org, you have to click on the vertical line in the timeline, click on a date that is circled, then click on a link that appears. Only then the article appears.)

For scaredy-cats, this is perfectly legal. A bit black hat, but legal.

Michael

[caroljane]

Thanks for the tip. The process looks scarily complex to no-tech me now, but I suppose I will learn it kicking and and screaming  all the way. As a scaredy cat (still active in the Canadian League of Cowards,  but don't tell anyone, I'm terrified of being found out) glad to know it isn't  breaking any rules.

As to the article, I thinkI sort of get the thrust, but still for the life of me can't figure out if Powell is defending her original theory or not. AndI got a good LSAT score way back when.

Incidentally I can't agree with the machines as fraud abettors idea, but in her right to say it I do. I'm with old elitist Voltaire on that one.

But unlimited free speech, like unlimitekd driving seatbeltless,  can cause disasters. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.Even though no reasonable person there would have seen any evidence of fire.

To paraphrase the old adage, "Say what you want, and pay, for it, says God."

 

 

 

[tmj]

I haven't read the article yet , so don't have an opinion as to the legal theory of the arguments qua arguments or commentary qua commentary. But the machines coupled with increased number of paper ballots is certainly amenable to fraud. The technique I've seen described most is that the machines are basically scanners that make an electronic file based on the scanned image. The tabulation is determined by counting the electronic files that correspond to a 'vote' for a 'candidate'.

The machines and processes therein contain the ability to manipulate either the electronic file of the image itself and or the category in which to identify the file as belonging.

Using those systems allow for manipulation by human actors , if there is a will these systems provide the way.

Real forensic audits,  audits that can see all the actions of the software coupled with a physical examination of the actual ballots would show the true story, but for whatever reason(s) that path is continually blocked.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 hours ago, caroljane said:

i wasn't aware that believing a theory, or taking it as a statement of fact,had to be regarded as two different things.

Carol,

When I said "Sidney said," I meant her lawyer and, by extension, her. Her preeminence as a lawyer does not let her play the game of using a lawyer to say something different than does about the same issue.

That aside, below is a leftie (Tim Pool) who says the same thing I do in different words. (And, I am sure William was aware of this when he posted the "headline." He was just being a brat.  )

I disagree with Tim Pool that the Dominion stuff is bonkers, but I am pretty sure he has not looked at the evidence. Once he does, I expect his opinion to change. (I've seen it happen with him before several times.)

But regarding what he did look at, here is what he just tweeted. Him being a leftie and all, maybe this will make more sense to you than the way I said it.

The "legal opinions" Tim referenced are the claims in the suit.

 

Why this nitpicking

If you want to know what's really going on with this, Dominion is playing a game. If they keep to their lawsuit as it stands, they will have to let Sidney's evidence into discovery, thus the court will be forced to review it. Once that happens, all hell will rain down on the head of Dominion and other perpetrators of the election fraud.

But if Dominion can trip up Powell into saying what she presented is fact, Dominion can shift the argument, but keep the claim for damages without having to let the court examine the evidence. All Dominion has to do in that case is prove that the facts have yet to be determined and they suffered material damages from Sidney claiming such as fact.

If that sounds confusing, it is until you grock it.

The libel law basically says a person can sue for libel if a person presents a falsehood as fact, it gets widespread exposure, and this results in damages to the party suing. If a falsehood is an opinion and presented as such, libel law does not apply.

In this case, supposing Sidney (or her lawyers) had presented their observations about the Dominion machines as established fact, the false statement--legally--would not be what they said about the Dominion machines. The falsehood would be that Sidney said something was fact before it was proven as fact in a court of law.

But Sidney is too smart a lawyer to fall for that and the fake news media is so committed to being garbage that they stuck their thumbs up their asses and lied again. They extracted partial quotes and made opinions about them to look like they were talking about facts, but they were careful to stick to opinions only. An opinion spun to infer fact is not the same thing as an opinion stated as a fact. And to further muddy the issue, they stated as fact what actually was fact. 

For example, if they proclaim as fact that "so-and-so said" and give a partial quote of that someone out of context with the same words, it actually is a fact that "so-and-so" said it (if there is a supporting document, and/or video, and/or confession, etc.). Even if they repeat what the person said in a context of quoting the person, they are still not presenting it as fact. But if they claim XXXX happened period, that's a statement of fact.

That kind of slithering is how they can get away with all the lying.

Their opinions--as usual--are almost always the exact opposite of the actual facts.

What's worse, they use loaded language that gets the public excited or riled and eating up this garbage, thus the public itself repeats this garbage to others as if it were fact.

(btw - Since not one of the smaller people in the public--us cattle--has a widespread audience, damages are super-difficult to prove, so they are not libel.)  

That's how this garbage comes into existence.

If you don't like the word "garbage," there are other terms that work just as well. Bullshit and horseshit come to mind. So do muck, twaddle, sleaze, baloney, trainwreck, and so on. Or deceit, propaganda, malicious mendacity, verbal vomit.

The options are many.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Offence, defence.   

7 hours ago, caroljane said:

As to the article, I thinkI sort of get the thrust, but still for the life of me can't figure out if Powell is defending her original theory or not.

The publicly available filing runs to 54 pages in Portable Document Format (PDF):

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519888/powell-dominion.pdf

To my understanding her lawyers' argument aligns with standard defenses offered in defamations lawsuits; roughly A) It's protected speech; B) the initiating suit is an incoherent mess; C) precedent requires the court to dismiss the motion.

The flavour of arguments made can be seen on this page:

I was intrigued by the inclusion of Patrick Byrne in the list of exhibits (which are not attached; maybe one of us will find it):

I borrowed the "incoherent mess" from the filing:

Now, Caroljane, if you wish to perform as  a junior magistrate here at OL Court, you will not only read, research and cogitate upon the 54 pages out of Powell's legal team -- to be fair you will also read the entire sprawling incoherent mess of the Dominion suit itself.  That is not as daunting as it could be, since the Dominion suit runs to a mere 124 pages -- with copious illustrations. And the items of the suit are numbered for convenience in citation:

What makes the Dominion document less daunting is that it contains images and direct  links to supposedly defamatory material uttered by Powell.

My legal knowledge of defamation law in the United States is relatively scant if not scanty. I think I can claim that American defamation suits can take a lot of time ... I do not expect a defamation trial to even begin this year.  

As for the current fAkE nEwS eruption putting 'reasonable people' and 'no reasonable person' quotes in conjunction with "statement of fact," larded with extra oomph or not ... the word "reasonable" occurs 9 times ("reasonableness" once), the phrase "reasonable people" occurs twice. The phrase "no reasonable person" occurs exactly once.

The full sentence on page 27 that contains the single "no reasonable person" within the document is:

Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would  conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.

Fuller context for all the junior magistrates of OL Assizes:

Edited March 24, 2021 by william.scherk
Spellinq

[caroljane]

Sometimes I think I really should have gone to law school, but reading a document like t his followed by a good John Grisham quickly dispels any regrets.

Are the exhibits the evidence?

[william.scherk]

14 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Are the exhibits the evidence?

I don't know.  Patrick Byrne is quite a character, so I was mainly interested in what he could possibly add to the heft of the motion to dismiss.

Sidney Powell's previous filings (Kraken!) are the ones that contained the sworn affidavits from such as Ramsland and 'statistical' arguments.  These expert findings are what I think Michael is pointing to.  This is the evidence that some believe no judge even bothered paying attention to. 

The Dominion suit has pictures, Carol! It's also well-structured as a kind of narrative (and then this happened, and then this happened) and may make for pleasure reading if read on a chaise with  a fire, some grog, and a spring snow storm outside.

Do you want me to try to assemble a list of the Kraken evidentiary items (affidavits and analyses)?  I am plodding away at trying to give you a precis of what JohnHereToHelp/Ryan Dark White/"FBI Whistleblower" and his claims are all about. It's kind of revealing that L Lin Wood backtracked a touch with "Ya well I found him credible but nobody has investigated. I just said what he said." I paraphrase.

"Evidence" that supports Powell's claims as found in the Kraken suits is what I think Michael finds compelling.

Edited March 24, 2021 by william.scherk
Grammaire, prose tuning

[william.scherk]

Michael mentions "discovery" in the context of the Powell-Dominion matter:

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If [Dominion] keep to their lawsuit as it stands, they will have to let Sidney's evidence into discovery, thus the court will be forced to review it.

Perhaps an infelicitous phrase, perhaps not quite clear -- "discovery" in civil suits is a pre-trial examination of parties to the suit. In the discovery phase, each side examines or questions the other side in a formal process that is not exactlly part of the trial itself (while perhaps providing 'sides' evidence that can help their case in trial. As I understand proceedings, the sides try to "discover" what it is the other side is claiming or asserting -- in detail -- under oath.

So let's say Dominion, in the discovery process, calls for those who have proffered affidavits or analyses to be sworn in and questioned.  The lawyer for the person 'testifying' may be present, but the lawyers for the other side generally are not. Each 'team' gets a crack at questioning the other side's case -- often in an attempt to avoid a costly, lengthy, resource-exhausting trial that can last for years with appeals (of note is that Patrick Byrne lost a million loonie defamation case in Vancouver five years ago -- and that process took five years to come to a conclusion).

Discovery can sometimes be a time where one or the other side says "They Got Me Here" on various issues, and can thus lead to a settlement that clears the air and satisfies both parties to some degree. 

(another lengthy defamation suit was Michael Mann's versus the National Review. He lost the ultimate round after eight years of litigation.)

As with the fabulist Ryan Dark White, some folks make "statements" or "interviews" that are not affidavits nor the results of depositions or 'discovery.'  If one of the experts/analysts from Kraken pleadings is examined for discovery, it just might turn out that the 'side' that relied on say, Ramsland or Cicchetti, would be themselves convinced that their offerings were bullshit or otherwise defective.

"Show your claim/s" is my shorthand for discovery in civil suits. My scanty legal knowledge is based mostly on the process in Canadian courts. Magistrates here with sufficient knowledge will kindly correct errors I have made pertaining to civil suit discovery process in US courts. 

[caroljane]

30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't know.  Patrick Byrne is quite a character, so I was mainly interested in what he could possibly add to the heft of the motion to dismiss.

Sidney Powell's previous filings (Kraken!) are the ones that contained the sworn affidavits from such as Ramsland and 'statistical' arguments.  These expert findings are what I think Michael is pointing to.  This is the evidence that some believe no judge even bothered paying attention to. 

The Dominion suit has pictures, Carol! It's also well-structured as a kind of narrative (and then this happened, and then this happened) and may make for pleasure reading if read on a chaise with  a fire, some grog, and a spring snow storm outside.

Do you want me to try to assemble a list of the Kraken evidentiary items (affidavits and analyses)?  I am plodding away at trying to give you a precis of what JohnHereToHelp/Ryan Dark White/"FBI Whistleblower" and his claims are all about. It's kind of revealing that L Lin Wood backtracked a touch with "Ya well I found him credible but nobody has investigated. I just said what he said." I paraphrase.

"Evidence" that supports Powell's claims as found in the Kraken suits is what I think Michael finds compelling.

You don't Have to wake theKraken for my sake unless you Are writing a book, which I wish you would do, tHough not necessarily on that subject.Too much .competition there. Better try Jane Austen continuations like me. Something fun and escapist.

I love pictures so I will consume "Satanus ex Machina ineasy stages even if we don't  get any storms.

[Ellen Stuttle]

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I disagree with Tim Pool that the Dominion stuff is bonkers, but I am pretty sure he has not looked at the evidence. Once he does, I expect his opinion to change. (I've seen it happen with him before several times.)

What’s bonkers is any belief that Biden really won.  

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

From Lin Wood about the Sidney Powell legalese shemozzle:

 

===== Start Quote

Lin Wood

 

RESPONSE TO THE FAKE NEWS ATTACKS ON SIDNEY POWELL


FREE SPEECH

- This defamation lawsuit is yet another attempt to silence critics and citizens who want to investigate voter fraud. The statements Dominion claims are defamatory are actually protected speech under the First Amendment because they deal with matters of public concern, i.e., election integrity. The Fake News media and their allies are spinning meritless claims because their arguments have neither the facts nor the law needed to hold up in a courtroom. 

- The statements complained of are also protected because Dominion is a public figure and must prove that Ms. Powell acted with malice. This is impossible, as Ms. Powell’s lawyer has explained, because Ms. Powell’s statements were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence. She presented this evidence for all to see in four court filings and on her website. 

FAKE NEWS

- Contrary to what the Fake News is pushing, Sidney did NOT claim in court that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’. The press is using twisted legalese and manipulating the legal standard to confuse the issue, as they have done before in other high-profile cases. Ms. Powell’s statements were legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence.  

- Dominion claims that the evidence Ms. Powell relied upon to assert her claims concerning the lack of election integrity is incredible and not believable. Ms. Powell responded by pointing out that her assertions were her legal opinions based on the evidence she presented to four different courts. Accordingly, her statements are not subject to challenge under defamation law.

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1133

18.5KviewsMar 24 at 15:18

 

===== End Quote

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Te-he.

 

=====Start Quote

Lin Wood

 

Jesus teaches us to love and forgive the bank robber. 

But the bank robber does not get to keep the money he or she stole. 

God is a God of grace and mercy. God is also a God of justice and righteousness.

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1148

16.9KviewsMar 24 at 21:25

 

=====End Quote

 

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Reprised advice:

 

===== Start Quote

Lin Wood

 

To succeed in controlling America, communism must take away our human rights recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Remember, these rights are bestowed upon us and are NOT granted by the government.

If we are governed by officials elected in an unlawful and dishonest election, you can toss our Constitution out the window.

Look around. What is happening to the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully assemble, the right to redress grievances, the right to bear arms, the right to due process (notice of charges and opportunity to be heard), the right to counsel of your choice, the right to confront accusers (without allowing them to hide behind masks), and the right to a trial by jury before impartial peers?

I believe nefarious actors in our country, including the active involvement of the Deep State and Globalists, have planned and allowed communism to seize our government without firing a shot. 

How do we return our country to its founding principles?

The first and essential step is to remove from government ALL officials supposedly elected to office in an unlawful and dishonest election. Then an honest election must be held - voter ID, paper ballots, and inked fingerprint verification.

Then and then only will the communists be defeated and our country be returned to We The People.

Do it community by community. State by state. As Jarrin Jackson says, “Live Local.”

Fight back non-violently. And Fight Like A Flynn. Never lose hope and never give up. 

Lin 

www.FightBack.com

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1156

2.9KviewsMar 25 at 11:42

 

===== End Quote

 

Ellen

[ThatGuy]

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

[Quoting Lin Wood] Fight back non-violently. And Fight Like A Flynn. Never lose hope and never give up. 

Wishful thinking, on Woods' part...If fighting back non-violently was all it would take, Biden wouldn't be urging the courts to allow no-warrant gun seizures...

(I'm not saying it's necessarily the time for that, at this point, or that it will necessarily come to that; I'm just sayin'...let's not be too naive about such things.  The Second Amendment is there for a reason. And yes, I know Wood puts his faith in Christ, but even still...for his sake, I'd say, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."  Or, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry."]

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

40 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

The Second Amendment is there for a reason. And yes, I know Wood puts his faith in Christ, but even still...for his sake, I'd say, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."  Or, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry."]

I'm not feeling sanguine about the hopes for non-violent success, especially since I'm more and more aware of how rotted with corruption the judiciary system has become.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Te-he.

 

=====Start Quote

Lin Wood

 

Jesus teaches us to love and forgive the bank robber. 

But the bank robber does not get to keep the money he or she stole. 

God is a God of grace and mercy. God is also a God of justice and righteousness.

 

t.me/LinWoodChannel/1148

16.9KviewsMar 24 at 21:25

 

=====End Quote

 

Ellen

I kept it.

--Brant

well, I did spend it (in an opium den and a whorehouse)

[ThatGuy]

29 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

God is a God of grace and mercy. God is also a God of justice and righteousness.

"God works too slow." -Eric Lensherr

[caroljane]

I work in mysterious ways, my wonders to perform.

-God

[caroljane]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm not feeling sanguine about the hopes for non-violent success, especially since I'm more and more aware of how rotted with corruption the judiciary system has become.

Ellen

Ellen, do you think violent methods have a chance of succeeding where non.violence has failed? Sadly this is not a hypothetical question, any more.

[Peter]

 

Jimbo, Jimbo, what you goin, to do eeoo..

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Objectivism and judicial ethics  Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:34:18 -0800/ You are a brilliant legal mind who has been appointed to the Supreme Court. A case comes before the court in which you think that a particular outcome is the right outcome.  That is, a majority decision in favor of your position would protect individual rights as you see them.  A majority decision in favor of the opposing position would be damaging to individual rights as you see them. But, in this particular case, you think that the Constitution is wrong.  (I can supply specific examples of what I have in mind if anyone would like to work with something more specific.)  A long line of court precedent upholds the Constitution.  The original intent is clear. But, the court is evenly balanced.  You are the deciding vote. Whichever way you vote, you will have to write an opinion justifying your decision, or at least you will have to join in someone else's opinion. What do you do?  What are the ethical considerations involved in doing one thing or the other? If you're an anarchist who would refuse the job in the first place, don't bother answering in detail.  We're not talking about that right now.  :-) --Jimbo

 

From: "Peter Reidy" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Objectivism and judicial ethics Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:29:41 +0000 I don't think this would pose much of a problem for a judge who is serious about ethics and his oath of office.  At the appellate or Supreme Court level, state or federal, the judge's job is to figure out what the constitution means, resolve ambiguities and spin out non-obvious consequences and applications.  This can be difficult, but what the judge thinks of a particular provision isn't one of those difficulties, any more than a judge's opinion of a particular piece of legislation is.  The Warren / Brennan / Bird type of judge would simply rationalize a conclusion that fits what he wishes the constitution said. I suspect that this situation comes up a lot more often than judges ever say publicly. Peter

From: "Mike" To: "atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Objectivism and judicial ethics Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:51:37 -0800.  Jimbo, Based on the assumed facts as you presented, I would state those facts pro and con for both positions in my concluding opinion. I would express my ethical concerns as to taking the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and acknowledge the difficulties for me to violate my understanding of the Constitution in this or any particular case. I would point out the precedent decisions that have supported the Constitution as written on the specific issue. I would also point out the arguments supporting a decision in favor of  individual rights and overturning this provision of the Constitution.

Since the assumed facts are my opinion is that the Constitution is wrong on this issue and that a decision to uphold would violate and damage individual rights, I would stick to my own opinion and decide in favor of protecting individual rights and explain why. Briefly my arguments would be along the lines that individual rights are supreme under our Constitution and must not be violated by the government nor the Constitution. I would also use other parts of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents that support individual rights that were used in the past to modify the Constitution to protect individual rights. Best, Mike

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Objectivism and judicial ethics Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:33:46 -0800 >Since the assumed facts are my opinion is that the Constitution is wrong on this issue and that a decision to uphold would violate and damage individual rights, I would stick to my own opinion and decide in favor of protecting individual rights and explain why.

My concern is that judges who proceed in this manner have been with us for many decades now.  They decide what they believe to be the morally correct solution, and then cast about for a Constitutional excuse to decide that way, ignoring the plain language of the Constitution in favor of their own views of right and wrong.

> Briefly my arguments would be along the lines that individual rights are supreme under our Constitution and must not be violated by the government nor the Constitution. I would also use other parts of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents that support individual rights that were used in the past to modify the Constitution to protect individual rights.

Let's say that the constitutional provision in question is the 16^th Amendment, which authorizes an income tax.  Would you rule that the income tax is unconstitutional, despite the plain language of the 16^th Amendment?  (Let's assume that you have studied the history of the amendment and are convinced that it was passed correctly and that the intention of the people who framed and ratified it is correctly expressed in the law in question.) That seems very dangerous to me. --Jimbo