|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ... >><https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
|
| What to Know About the Efforts to Remove Trump From the
| 2024 Ballot
|
| There are lawsuits pending in more than a dozen states
| seeking to have Donald J. Trump disqualified from appearing
| on primary ballots.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-ballot-remove-2024.html>
--bks
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
On 12/29/2023 7:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
   --bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
Due process has not been ignored or denied.
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
Being found guilty of a crime is not required under 14.3
I'm sure you're already writing the posts about the "crooked Supreme
Court" when the SC (rightly) shuts this insurrectionist activity (by
th state judges and prosecutors) down.
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican
states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders
can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
Steven Sadow wrote:
On 12/29/2023 7:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
Due process has not been ignored or denied.
Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution??
Are you saying that it applies to everyone except in this case??
You sound like a Democrat. Either you never attended High School, or
you never paid attention while there.
NoBody wrote:
I'm sure you're already writing the posts about the "crooked Supreme
Court" when the SC (rightly) shuts this insurrectionist activity (by
th state judges and prosecutors) down.
Naw. I'm already writing about the court that keeps whining about
the plain language of the Constitution ignores plain language and
facts to hoist itself on its own partisan petard. It's glorious.
NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican
states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders
can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
You have been insisting this requires a criminal conviction. So
where is Biden's criminal trial in a criminal court?
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ... >><https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime >because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican
states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders
can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:12:08 -0600, Ken <Ken@invalid.com> wrote:
Steven Sadow wrote:
On 12/29/2023 7:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
   --bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
Due process has not been ignored or denied.
Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution??
Are you saying that it applies to everyone except in this case??
You sound like a Democrat. Either you never attended High School, or
you never paid attention while there.
It's Rudely posing as someone else. Ignore it and it will morph to
some other name. He *hates* being ignored.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:22:38 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored
and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican
states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders
can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
You have been insisting this requires a criminal conviction. So
where is Biden's criminal trial in a criminal court?
I'm merely applying the same rules the Dems have. Suddenly you are concerned. Why might that be?
NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:12:08 -0600, Ken <Ken@invalid.com> wrote:
Steven Sadow wrote:
On 12/29/2023 7:47 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)Due process has not been ignored or denied.
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored >>>>
Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution??
Are you saying that it applies to everyone except in this case??
You sound like a Democrat. Either you never attended High School, or
you never paid attention while there.
It's Rudely posing as someone else. Ignore it and it will morph to
some other name. He *hates* being ignored.
I don't know what the Supremes will do, perhaps slink away, but
they will do something. And then we can watch your head explode as
you insist the Supremes refused medical treatment twice.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:20:48 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
I'm sure you're already writing the posts about the "crooked Supreme
Court" when the SC (rightly) shuts this insurrectionist activity (by
th state judges and prosecutors) down.
Naw. I'm already writing about the court that keeps whining about
the plain language of the Constitution ignores plain language and
facts to hoist itself on its own partisan petard. It's glorious.
Care to cite some of those posts? The only ones that show here are
your half-passed out drunken ramblings.
NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:22:38 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored >>>> and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican
states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders >>>> can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
You have been insisting this requires a criminal conviction. So
where is Biden's criminal trial in a criminal court?
I'm merely applying the same rules the Dems have. Suddenly you are
concerned. Why might that be?
You mistake ridicule of your hypocrisy for concern.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:52:03 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:22:38 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
On 29 Dec 2023 12:43:12 -0000, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
|
| Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior
| Criminal Conviction on Charges of Insurrection
|
| The reason is a combination of the general structure of our
| legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
| ...
<https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/26/why-section-3-disqualifications-doesnt-require-a-prior-conviction-on-criminal-charges-of-insurrection/>
--bks
Sure now tell us where in Section 3 it says due process may be ignored >>>>> and civil courts may decide that someone is guilty of a crime
because...well...because.
Be very careful about for what you argue. Look forward to Republican >>>>> states to retaliate against Biden. His refusal to enforce the borders >>>>> can be viewed as an insurrection too.
Goose meet gander.
You have been insisting this requires a criminal conviction. So
where is Biden's criminal trial in a criminal court?
I'm merely applying the same rules the Dems have. Suddenly you are
concerned. Why might that be?
You mistake ridicule of your hypocrisy for concern.
You have favored going after Trump. That is YOUR concern not mine.
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision
| quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential
| primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to
| take up Trump's appeal of a case from Colorado stemming
| from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6,
| 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24?taid=65987d59ccad940001a305c6>
--bks
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
Which is worse, that she said this, or that it might be true?
| ...
| Addressing the Supreme Court's looming 14th Amendment
| decisions on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from
| state ballots for engaging in insurrection, [Trump attorney
| Alina] Habba decided it would be a good time to remind
| people of just how much Trump has done for Justice Brett M.
| Kavanaugh.
|
| "I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court; I
| have faith in them," Habba said on Fox News. "You know,
| people like Kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the
| president went through hell to get into place, he'll step
| up."
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 14:02:59 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
|
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision
| quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential
| primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to
| take up Trump's appeal of a case from Colorado stemming
| from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6,
| 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
| ...
<https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24?taid=65987d59ccad940001a305c6>
--bks
Will you happily announce when the SC keeps him on the ballot and
tosses these cases or will you hide?
| Addressing the Supreme Court's looming 14th Amendment
| decisions on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from
| state ballots for engaging in insurrection, [Trump attorney
| Alina] Habba decided it would be a good time to remind
| people of just how much Trump has done for Justice Brett M.
| Kavanaugh.
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection because it wouldn't have fit the leftists' narrative.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection because
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection because
On 1/8/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether formerom
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection
because
Because:
1) the vast majority of 2020 George Floyd-inspired protests didn't become riots; and
2) the ones that did weren't insurrections — no attempts to overthrow governments
Fuck off, you little cunt.
On 2024-01-08, Axel Springer <assholes@deutschland.de> wrote:
On 1/8/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:You seem to have an obsession with the word 'cunt', Rudy.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether formerom
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection
because
Because:
1) the vast majority of 2020 George Floyd-inspired protests didn't become riots; and
2) the ones that did weren't insurrections — no attempts to overthrow governments
Fuck off, you little cunt.
On 2024-01-08, Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote:
On 1/8/2024 11:14 AM, "pothole," Nazi liar and little person, lied:
On 2024-01-08, Axel Springer <assholes@deutschland.de> wrote:
On 1/8/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:You seem to have an obsession with the word 'cunt', Rudy.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether formerom
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection >>>>> because
Because:
1) the vast majority of 2020 George Floyd-inspired protests didn't become riots; and
2) the ones that did weren't insurrections — no attempts to overthrow governments
Fuck off, you little cunt.
I have an obsession with calling cunts like you what you are: cunts.
That's not nice.
The assault on the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an insurrection. Nothing else since
1865 has been. Fuck off, little person.
Wrong.
It was a rally, protest that got way out of hand.
On 1/8/2024 11:14 AM, "pothole," Nazi liar and little person, lied:
On 2024-01-08, Axel Springer <assholes@deutschland.de> wrote:
On 1/8/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:You seem to have an obsession with the word 'cunt', Rudy.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether formerom
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
|
| Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
| has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
| attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
|
| Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
| to describe the events of the day, as did
| then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
| Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
| headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
| about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
| president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
| otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
| marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
| as the world's most powerful job.
|
| In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
| the term's accuracy and propriety.
| ...
<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anniversary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting was never called an insurrection >>>> because
Because:
1) the vast majority of 2020 George Floyd-inspired protests didn't become riots; and
2) the ones that did weren't insurrections — no attempts to overthrow governments
Fuck off, you little cunt.
I have an obsession with calling cunts like you what you are: cunts.
The assault on the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an insurrection. Nothing else since
1865 has been. Fuck off, little person.
Which is worse, that she said this, or that it might be true?
| ...
| Addressing the Supreme Court's looming 14th Amendment
| decisions on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from
| state ballots for engaging in insurrection, [Trump attorney
| Alina] Habba decided it would be a good time to remind
| people of just how much Trump has done for Justice Brett M.
| Kavanaugh.
|
| "I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court; I
| have faith in them," Habba said on Fox News. "You know,
| people like Kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the
| president went through hell to get into place, he'll step
| up."
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/05/2-key-points-trumps-lawyer-suggesting-justice-kavanaugh-owes-trump/>
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
| Addressing the Supreme Court's looming 14th Amendment
| decisions on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from
| state ballots for engaging in insurrection, [Trump attorney
| Alina] Habba decided it would be a good time to remind
| people of just how much Trump has done for Justice Brett M.
| Kavanaugh.
Wake Kavanaugh from his alcohol stupor and remind him he is bought
and paid for.
NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 13:00:22 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
| The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former<https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-insurrection-january-6-anni
| President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because
| of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss,
| inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential
| campaign.
Throughout all three branches of the U.S. government, there
has been widespread agreement that the Jan. 6, 2021,
attacks on the U.S. Capitol amounted to an "insurrection."
Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress used the word
to describe the events of the day, as did
then-President-elect Joe Biden three years ago this
Saturday. The Fourth Estate deemed it so in banner
headlines beamed around the world accompanying articles
about deadly rioters -- egged on by a vanquished lame-duck
president -- who overcame law enforcement to disrupt an
otherwise ceremonial moment that for two-plus centuries had
marked the peaceful transfer of power for what's now seen
as the world's most powerful job.
In the years since, state and federal judges have upheld
the term's accuracy and propriety.
...
versary-supreme-court-disqualification>
--bks
And of course all the leftist rioting
...has nothing to do with this case.
Can't you stick with the topic?
was never called an insurrection
because it wouldn't have fit the leftists' narrative.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 14:31:19 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
Which is worse, that she said this, or that it might be true?
| ...
| Addressing the Supreme Court's looming 14th Amendment
| decisions on whether Donald Trump can be disqualified from
| state ballots for engaging in insurrection, [Trump attorney
| Alina] Habba decided it would be a good time to remind
| people of just how much Trump has done for Justice Brett M.
| Kavanaugh.
|
| "I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court; I
| have faith in them," Habba said on Fox News. "You know,
| people like Kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the
| president went through hell to get into place, he'll step
| up."
| ... >><https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/05/2-key-points-trumps-lawyer-suggesting-justice-kavanaugh-owes-trump/>
--bks
Habba is an idiot to suggest someone should be declared guilty of a
crime he's never been charged with.
|
| Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction
| filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by
| Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the
| 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running
| for office.
| ... <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/28/us-historians-sign-brief-to-support-colorados-removal-of-trump-from-ballot>
On 1/28/24 06:57, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
|
| Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction
| filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by
| Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the
| 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running
| for office.
| ...
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/28/us-historians-sign-brief-
to-support-colorados-removal-of-trump-from-ballot>
Chances are that those co called historians are left wing Democrats.
On 1/28/24 06:57, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
 |
 | Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction
 | filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by
 | Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the
 | 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running
 | for office.
 | ...
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/28/us-historians-sign-brief-to-support-colorados-removal-of-trump-from-ballot>
Chances are that those co called historians are left wing Democrats.
| Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction
| filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by
| Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the
| 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running
| for office.
| Meet the Lonely Republicans Willing to Say It: Trump Is
| Disqualified
| Meet the Lonely Republicans Willing to Say It: Trump Is
| Disqualified
Impeccably credentialed conservative Repubican judge submits brief
to SCOTUS arguing that Trump is disqualified from the Presidency: ><https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf>
SCOTUS rules unanimously that it is the job of Congress, not
individual states, to throw Trump off the ballot.
e.g.:
<https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1764667448207314981/photo/1>
On 3/4/2024 7:09 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
SCOTUS rules unanimously that it is the job of Congress, not
individual states, to throw Trump off the ballot.
e.g.:
<https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1764667448207314981/photo/1>
Congress could still disqualify him *after* the election and refuse to
count any electoral votes he received. Such votes would not be
"regularly given."
SCOTUS rules unanimously that it is the job of Congress, not
individual states, to throw Trump off the ballot.
e.g.:
<https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1764667448207314981/photo/1>
--bks
On 3/4/2024 9:32 AM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 3/4/2024 7:09 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
SCOTUS rules unanimously that it is the job of Congress, not
individual states, to throw Trump off the ballot.
e.g.:
<https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1764667448207314981/photo/1>
Congress could still disqualify him *after* the election and refuse to
count any electoral votes he received. Such votes would not be
"regularly given."
That is almost certain not to happen because if Trump wins, it is
unlikely the Democrats would hold both houses of Congress. Plus, I would
bet the farm the Democrats would not do so.
It's also possible that application of the Electoral Act would be
precluded by this decision. If it did happen, that would be a full-blown >constitutional crisis.
The Court rules what was obvious from the beginning and the media
cries.
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont- email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on >> the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to
freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who
is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to
freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from running
for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly tried,
convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able to be elected to Congress
in direct violation of the intent and plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns so
high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people who bought
them immune from laws of men and decency.
There was no insurrection in January 6.
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
Let the voters decide.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:55:29 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on >>> the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to
freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
<LOL> Only the Congress can do it, you dumb ass.
On 3/5/24 14:55, Siri Cruise wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had
told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose
(again) who is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for
regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential
participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't
like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the
right to
freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
There was no insurrection in January 6.
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:55:29 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont- >>>> email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a >>>> state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants. >>>> They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them. >>>>
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to >>>> freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
<LOL> Only the Congress can do it, you dumb ass.
Where else does the Constitution require Congress pass what looks
like a bill of attainder? How would Congress even manage to pass
up to 500 separate bills to disqualify? Especially since the
amendment before Scrotus struck it turned to Congress to remove an
automatic disqualification.
When I was young not once did a lone gunman bring a military style
weapon into a school and kill children. Now it's routine. After
Nixon we knew how much everyone was paying to buy politicians. Now
we have no idea who the owners are. We had outlawed discrimination
in many contexts. Now Scrotus allows it when people claim a deeply
held religious belief. Now an embryo not even in a uterus is a
full human with human rights.
You're owning the libs as the nine corrupt craven clowns
disassemble a secure liberal democracy. So you're joyous.
You're not getting a republic.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:08:14 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:55:29 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont- >>>>> email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a >>>>> state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants. >>>>> They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them. >>>>>
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to >>>>> freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
<LOL> Only the Congress can do it, you dumb ass.
Where else does the Constitution require Congress pass what looks
like a bill of attainder? How would Congress even manage to pass
up to 500 separate bills to disqualify? Especially since the
amendment before Scrotus struck it turned to Congress to remove an
automatic disqualification.
When I was young not once did a lone gunman bring a military style
weapon into a school and kill children. Now it's routine. After
Nixon we knew how much everyone was paying to buy politicians. Now
we have no idea who the owners are. We had outlawed discrimination
in many contexts. Now Scrotus allows it when people claim a deeply
held religious belief. Now an embryo not even in a uterus is a
full human with human rights.
You're owning the libs as the nine corrupt craven clowns
disassemble a secure liberal democracy. So you're joyous.
You're not getting a republic.
States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with
respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:08:14 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:55:29 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont- >>>>> email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a >>>>> state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants. >>>>> They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them. >>>>>
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to >>>>> freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
<LOL> Only the Congress can do it, you dumb ass.
Where else does the Constitution require Congress pass what looks
like a bill of attainder? How would Congress even manage to pass
up to 500 separate bills to disqualify? Especially since the
amendment before Scrotus struck it turned to Congress to remove an >>automatic disqualification.
When I was young not once did a lone gunman bring a military style
weapon into a school and kill children. Now it's routine. After
Nixon we knew how much everyone was paying to buy politicians. Now
we have no idea who the owners are. We had outlawed discrimination
in many contexts. Now Scrotus allows it when people claim a deeply
held religious belief. Now an embryo not even in a uterus is a
full human with human rights.
You're owning the libs as the nine corrupt craven clowns
disassemble a secure liberal democracy. So you're joyous.
You're not getting a republic.
States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with
respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law which >forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on the ballot.
On 3/5/24 14:55, Siri Cruise wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont-
email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who
is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a
state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants.
They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them.
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to
freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from running
for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly tried,
convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now thanks to Scrotus
unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able to be elected to Congress
in direct violation of the intent and plain meaning of the amendment.
There was no insurrection in January 6.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns so
high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people who bought
them immune from laws of men and decency.
You really need to learn how to think.
NoBody wrote:
The Court rules what was obvious from the beginning and the media
cries.
Yes, it was.
Don Fatso has taken the opportunity to celebrate his insurrection.
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
I grow increasingly wary of Kennedy's quote
Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:08:14 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:55:29 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
David LaRue wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:us7os9$3t7ld$1@dont- >>>>>> email.me:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
How can the Democrats think that the States get to choose (again) who is on
the Federal election. Clearly they might have a case for regulating a >>>>>> state election, but only when it applies to all potential participants. >>>>>> They can't choose to exclude a candidate because they don't like them. >>>>>>
Then again the Democrats and millenials seem to feel that the right to >>>>>> freedon of speach only applies to them and not others.
The amendment was passed to restrict confederate traitors from
running for Congress. All those 6 January insurrectionists duly
tried, convicted, and imprisonned will be released soon. Now
thanks to Scrotus unsaying the 14th amendment, they will be able
to be elected to Congress in direct violation of the intent and
plain meaning of the amendment.
It used to require a slow and expensive process to amend the
Constitution. Now all takes is a band of feckless, corrupt clowns
so high on their flatulence they think themselves and the people
who bought them immune from laws of men and decency.
<LOL> Only the Congress can do it, you dumb ass.
Where else does the Constitution require Congress pass what looks
like a bill of attainder? How would Congress even manage to pass
up to 500 separate bills to disqualify? Especially since the
amendment before Scrotus struck it turned to Congress to remove an
automatic disqualification.
When I was young not once did a lone gunman bring a military style
weapon into a school and kill children. Now it's routine. After
Nixon we knew how much everyone was paying to buy politicians. Now
we have no idea who the owners are. We had outlawed discrimination
in many contexts. Now Scrotus allows it when people claim a deeply
held religious belief. Now an embryo not even in a uterus is a
full human with human rights.
You're owning the libs as the nine corrupt craven clowns
disassemble a secure liberal democracy. So you're joyous.
You're not getting a republic.
States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with
respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
States no longer have the power to protect school children from
firearm violence. And that makes you happy.
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 02:55:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
So Trump is lying.
Well, DUH!
Swill
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING
for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given
certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law which forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on the ballot.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:49:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law which
forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on the ballot.
AFTER a conviction of the crime.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:49:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law which
forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on the ballot.
Ok, 14.3 doesn't prohibit Congress from passing a law that prevents running under certain
conditions, but that doesn't change the fact that currently, it doesn't keep anybody from
running.
On 3/5/24 21:49, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from
RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given
certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law
which forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on
the ballot.
Who makes the legal determination that what happened was an insurrection?
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:us8rbj$7a8a$1@dont- >email.me:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
No man is above the law.
Except Trump.
Trump is above the law, just ask him.
To paraphrase his fellow NY socialite
Leona Helmsly, "obeying the law is for the
little people".
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:58:46 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:us8rbj$7a8a$1@dont-
email.me:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
No man is above the law.
Except Trump.
Trump is above the law, just ask him.
To paraphrase his fellow NY socialite
Leona Helmsly, "obeying the law is for the
little people".
The leftist losers think they know more about the law than the Supreme
Court.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:50:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and then
barred from running for office?
You have asked before and it's still a stupid question.
I don't know.
The leftist losers think they know more about the law than the Supreme
Court.
Ticks on rabid ground squirrels know more about law than Scrotus.
Suck it up loser. Your way has become the wrong way.
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 13:58:46 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:us8rbj$7a8a$1@dont- >>> email.me:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
No man is above the law.
Except Trump.
Trump is above the law, just ask him.
To paraphrase his fellow NY socialite
Leona Helmsly, "obeying the law is for the
little people".
The leftist losers think they know more about the law than the Supreme
Court.
Ticks on rabid ground squirrels know more about law than Scrotus.
On 3/6/2024 4:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:49:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from
RUNNING for a federal office (read it again), it only prohibits
them from SERVING given certain very specific criteria (read it
again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law
which forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being
on the ballot.
AFTER a conviction of the crime.
No. The Court did not hold that such a law would *require* a criminal conviction.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 04:38:49 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
The Court rules what was obvious from the beginning and the media
cries.
Yes, it was.
Don Fatso has taken the opportunity to celebrate his insurrection.
No insurrection has been charged nor tried in a court regarding Trump.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:27:12 -0800, Siri Cruiseback in 2021 and
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate
then barred from running for office?
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
I grow increasingly wary of Kennedy's quote
Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
You mean like during the "Summere of Love" where cities burned? This
wasn't done by Republicans.
On 2024-03-06, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:27:12 -0800, Siri Cruise
So the new ponderring is how Scrotus will rationalise finding Don
Fatso immune from prosecution.
I grow increasingly wary of Kennedy's quote
Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
You mean like during the "Summere of Love" where cities burned? This
wasn't done by Republicans.
And Kamala Harris raised bail money for them.
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
The leftist losers think they know more about the law than the Supreme >>>> Court.
Ticks on rabid ground squirrels know more about law than Scrotus.
Suck it up loser. Your way has become the wrong way.
Judges serving the people instead of owners, engaging in legalese >masturbation is the right way. A liberal democracy is the wrong way.
Try it. Ask anyone you know whether the president is a federal
office. It takes a dedicated lawyer to argue over this.
You don't want a liberal democracy. So you're happy. We're not
going to have a république in the end.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:12:20 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Blue Lives Matter wrote:
The leftist losers think they know more about the law than the Supreme >>>>> Court.
Ticks on rabid ground squirrels know more about law than Scrotus.
Suck it up loser. Your way has become the wrong way.
Judges serving the people instead of owners, engaging in legalese
masturbation is the right way. A liberal democracy is the wrong way.
Try it. Ask anyone you know whether the president is a federal
office. It takes a dedicated lawyer to argue over this.
You don't want a liberal democracy. So you're happy. We're not
going to have a république in the end.
Your private little world is collapsing, too.
On 3/6/2024 4:07 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:39:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you.
It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
And yet you spent months arguing with me that Colorado was correct.
No, I did not. To the contrary, I thought Colorado was wrong for the
very reason the Court held it was wrong (the chaos of 50 different >standards).
On 3/6/2024 5:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:49:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:Ok, 14.3 doesn't prohibit Congress from passing a law that prevents running under certain
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law which >>> forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on the ballot. >>
conditions, but that doesn't change the fact that currently, it doesn't keep anybody from
running.
That could be right, but there is the possibility that a conviction on
the current criminal prohibition against insurrection could kick you off
the ballot (it's not settled law).
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in >news:usa5c2$gn4p$2@dont-email.me:
On 3/6/2024 4:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:49:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from
RUNNING for a federal office (read it again), it only prohibits
them from SERVING given certain very specific criteria (read it
again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law
which forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being
on the ballot.
AFTER a conviction of the crime.
No. The Court did not hold that such a law would *require* a criminal
conviction.
The accuation is not enough in the United States.
On 3/6/2024 11:51 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:50:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and then
barred from running for office?
You have asked before and it's still a stupid question.
I don't know.
Quack (he said, as he dodged the question). Have guts - answer the question!
On 3/6/2024 6:26 AM, David Hartung wrote:
On 3/5/24 21:49, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
{snip}
Since you need the detail, 14.3 does not prohibit anybody from
RUNNING for a federal
office (read it again), it only prohibits them from SERVING given
certain very specific
criteria (read it again).
The Court left open the possibility that Congress could pass a law
which forbids insurrectionist federal-office candidates from being on
the ballot.
Who makes the legal determination that what happened was an insurrection?
Congress would specify who does in the law they would pass.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:45:46 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 3/6/2024 11:51 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:50:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/5/2024 5:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Let the voters decide.
I probably asked this before, but I can't remember what you said.
Should Trump have been convicted by the Senate back in 2021 and then
barred from running for office?
You have asked before and it's still a stupid question.
I don't know.
Quack (he said, as he dodged the question). Have guts - answer the question!
There goes that irony bell again.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 08:24:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 3/6/2024 4:07 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:39:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 3/5/2024 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
Oh, and as predicted you were WRONG about Colorado as I had told you. >>>>> It would be nice if you admitted it.
I predicted SCOTUS would reverse, likely unanimously.
And yet you spent months arguing with me that Colorado was correct.
No, I did not. To the contrary, I thought Colorado was wrong for the
very reason the Court held it was wrong (the chaos of 50 different >>standards).
Talk about revisionist history!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 104:02:39 |
| Calls: | 6,851 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,355 |
| Messages: | 5,415,556 |