On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:54:59 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-25 7:36 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>> those assembled.
>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>
>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>
>Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of people
>trying to overthrown the government and install a dictator becomes an
>insurrection?

Well, since the winners write the history books ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:sbs19h19dts2hhe3pq8shn59p2u7rhuteg@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 26 May 2022 08:27:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:8tLjK.7$YpK3.4@fx05.iad:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 20:40:03 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans
>>>>>> >> who don't recignize the legitimacy of the current
>>>>>> >> government to be surprisingly high. But that's not
>>>>>> >> "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen they have
>>>>>> >> to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6,
>>>>>> >2021, demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building,
>>>>>> >committing acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against
>>>>>> >persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>> >those assembled.
>>>>>> >So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point
>>>>>> >here.
>>>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>>>
>>>>>In what way were they 'crazy'? Are you claiming they were all
>>>>>mentally ill, and not responsible for their actions? They had
>>>>>a plan: prevent the certification of the election, throwing
>>>>>the election to the House, were they would get Trump elected.
>>>>>It was rational as it was unAmerican, and could conceivably
>>>>>have worked. We're lucky it did not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it was an insurrection.
>>>>
>>>>They were approximately 0.0001% of the population or 0.0004%
>>>>of Republicans. That's a lunatic-fringe. You may not like
>>>>it, you may not want to accept it, you may think that there is
>>>>some serious effort afoot to overthrow the government, but
>>>>_that_ was not _it_.
>>>
>>> Throw in Trump's ravings and it _was_ a serious effort to
>>> overthrow the government.
>>>
>>And yet, not a single person has been prosecuted for
>>insurrection.
>
> So far.

It's been nearly a year an a half, and presoecutions have not been
scarce.
>
>>And no reason to believe anybody ever will be.
>
> That remains to be seen.

Just keep telling youself that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:svr19h9n1ljr4a690r1gvo7psfulcbo8ol@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:53:32 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-26 10:17 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 10:42:35 -0600, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-25 10:22 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 02:25:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-05-24 10:00 a.m., Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris
>>>>>>>>> Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously
>>>>>>>> and deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>>>>>>> recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as
>>>>>>>> opposed to acts of the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty
>>>>>>> of insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of
>>>>>>> hte current government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah, you have to act violently on that position for it to
>>>>>> be insurrection. Of course the January 6th guys were doing
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, either that or there are so few "Registered
>>>>> Republicans" that the, what, maybe 1000 or so involved are
>>>>> 59% of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait, you're only counting those who "consciously and
>>>>> deliberately" did it. So maybe the number of "Registered
>>>>> Republicans" is about 100 at best?
>>>>
>>>> What are you babbling about?
>>>
>>> I am pointing out that it /is/ possible for those who are
>>> being tried, and will be tried in the future, for an organized
>>> and deliberate effort to prevent Congress from perfoming its
>>> duty /could/ be 59% of "registered Republicans" if the number
>>> of "registered Republicans" is small enough.
>>
>>..uh-hunh. Why are you pointing that out?
>
> Because it was claimed that their were so few insurrectionists
> that they could not be 59% of "registered Republicans".

Since there were zero insurrectionists, that would be a valid
claim.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:t6osvk$1vfk$3@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2022-05-25 7:36 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who
>>>> don't recignize the legitimacy of the current government to
>>>> be surprisingly high. But that's not "insurrection". For
>>>> "insurrection" to happen they have to try to do something
>>>> unlawful about it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021,
>>> demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building, committing
>>> acts of vandalism, and acts of violence against persons, as
>>> well as making death threats against some of those assembled.
>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>
>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>
> Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of
> people trying to overthrown the government and install a
> dictator becomes an insurrection?
>
Hard to say, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere *after* at least one
person gets charged with insurrection.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>> >>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be
>> >>>> surprisingly high. But that's not "insurrection". For
>> >>>> "insurrection" to happen they have to try to do something unlawful
>> >>>> about it.
>> >>>
>> >>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021,
>> >>>demonstrators trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of
>> >>>vandalism, and acts of violence against persons, as well as making
>> >>>death threats against some of those assembled.
>> >>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>> >>
>> >>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>> >
>> >Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think that
>> a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy, you're
>> crazy.
>
> They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
> demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
> particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
> excitement of the moment.
>
> Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral vote
> count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical gear, had
> radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the more chaotic mob.
> There's strong evidence of pre-planning, reconnaissance, and more
> recently, pre-coordination with Trump cronies.
>
> What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>
> pt

At what? Storming a building they were welcomed into? Frightening a
bunch of politicians(schoolgirls)? Back in the day the Congress would
ran them out of the building with their canes(if they had no other
weapons).

On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:50:52 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:15:40 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>>those assembled.
>>>>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>>
>>>>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>
>>>Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>>
>>You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>>you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>>that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>>you're crazy.
>
>0.001% is not a "handful". I never said it was "many".

You are quibbling over the definition of "handful" and either ignoring
or attempting to distract from the point.

>And, since they actually /succeeded/ in storming the Capitol, they
>weren't all that crazy, were they?

Crazy people can set and achieve objectives you know.
Ask any serial killer.

>Twisting and turning -- are you so terrified that an Unindicted
>Co-conspirator will appear in the conspiracy trial? That a certain
>ex-President/foreign agent will turn out to have participated in the
>planning? Is that why you are so frantic?

You're the one "twisting and turning" to avoid admitting that your
"insurrection" was a handful of nuts. My position has been
straightforward. It was a handful of nuts. I have not "twisted" or
"turned" from that position, merely denied your asssertion that it was
more than "a handful" and that they were "not crazy".

If Trump is found to be complicit, I really don't give a damn. If the
earth swallows him up my only concern is for the earth's digestion. If
somebody busts a cap on his fat ass they should get a medal. If the
dead cat on his head turns out to be a zombie cat and tries to eat his
brain, well, good luck finding _that_.

>>>They were mostly Trump supporters, all riled up by their Supreme
>>>Leader.
>>>
>>>But some were rather more organized, and are being tried as such.
>>>
>>>(They are in the preliminaries of the procedure, but that is where
>>>they are heading.)

On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:00:18 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2022-05-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
>>> Isn't that the primary element of an insurrection?
>>
>>I wouldn't say so. In an insurrection, folks consciously and
>>deliberately (not just caught up in a riot) no longer
>>recognize the legitimacy of the current government, as opposed to acts
>>of the government.
>
>That definition makes 59% of registered republicans guilty of
>insurrection, as they don't recognize the legitimacy of hte
>current government.

I'm assuming that stat is based on some kind of limited survey.

I'd argue that if >I< took a poll of committed Republicans
considerably more than 59% of them consider their most probable
response to that to be doing their best to reverse things by turning
up in November with a smaller proportion doing much more than that in
GOP campaign rooms and on the hustings.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:01 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>
>Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...

Again how many of them actually did that as opposed to those who plan
on going to the polls in November hellbent on "throwing the bastards
out"?

You seem to be confused on the difference between those two groups.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:54:59 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-25 7:36 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>> those assembled.
>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>
>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>
>Ah. Where's the official cut off point at which a group of people
>trying to overthrown the government and install a dictator becomes an
>insurrection?

Well, according to one source
<https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia> schizophrenia affects
roughly 1.1% of the population, so I would want to at least see that
threshold crossed before treating as more than lunatic-fringe
activity.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 22:50:12 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>So unless it's a large number of people it can't be an insurrection?

What's large?

Canada had a shooter inside our Parliament who was taken out by a
guard (and who for reasons I still don't understand was rewarded by
making him ambassador to Ireland).

We had another guy hauled into court for whizzing on the national war
memorial. He said he was drunk and has no memory of the incident.

Yeah sure.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 10:16:29 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>> More likely, unless it is being done by someone he doesn't like it
>> can't be an insurrection.
>>
>> "/They/ do insurrection. /We/ merely get over-excited."
>
>Shouldn't that be "We present grievances; you get over-excited; they do
>insurrections"?

I love how you conjugate your verbs!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:29429htlfd2jntntsclkcul0go8psvaf91@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:01 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who
>>> don't recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be
>>> surprisingly high. But that's not "insurrection". For
>>> "insurrection" to happen they have to try to do something
>>> unlawful about it.
>>
>>Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...
>
> Again how many of them actually did that as opposed to those who
> plan on going to the polls in November hellbent on "throwing the
> bastards out"?
>
> You seem to be confused on the difference between those two
> groups.
>
Is there *any* subect Alan isn't confused about? He doesn't the his
ass from a hole in the ground, even with a thumb test.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:12:22 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Which confirms my assertion the the Supreme Court is /not/ pro-life,
>but merely anti-abortion.
>
>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a recent
>decision that new evidence can be ignored in some situations.

A key role of any judge is evaluating the quality of evidence which
can range from "this evidence alone seals the case" to "OMG that's
laughable that anybody would come into this court and present it with
a straight face"

Of course there have been lots of comments in court that touch on
evidence that would be equally funny if they weren't tragic.

"If it doesn't fit you must acquit!" comes to mind here - no doubt you
can think of others.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:12:22 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 May 2022 00:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:59:05 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:gkv48h93ilq8kgp6o...@4ax.com:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> > It is my understanding that, if you check with the Pope, you
>>> > will find that being pro-life includes all of:
>>> >
>>> > 1) opposition to abortion
>>> > 2) opposition to effective contraception
>>> > 3) opposition to capital punishment
>>> >
>>> > Although not a Roman Catholic, I suggest that the Pope's
>>> > definition of "pro-life" is reasonably authoritative.
>>> Only for Catholics. And really, when it comes to the loudest of the
>>> anti-abortion types in the US, neither they nor the Pope would
>>> consider tham Catholic (and most of them dont' consider Catholics
>>> Christian, or even human).
>>> --
>>
>>Earlier, I mentioned the "seamless garment" theory regarding "pro-life."
>>
>>AKA
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethi
>>
>>In 2018, Pope Frankie expounded thusly:
>>
>>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html
>>
>>So, anti-capital-punishment is in the Catechism.
>>
>>There has not yet been a papal bull, with Senor Bergoglio speaking
>>"ex cathedra."
>>
>>https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/francis-kills-the-death-penalty-for-roman-catholicism/
>>
>>Paul VI at least issued this, re: abortion and artificial birth control.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
>>
>>https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
>>
>>But even that wasn't "ex cathedra," or was it ?
>>
>>[quote]
>>
>> “Ask 5 different theologians to define infallibility and you’ll get six different answers.”
>>
>>[/quote]
>>
>>https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-theologians-take-define-infallibility/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=ecperson&ref_post=afraid-theotokos-catholic-charismatic-carnal-dormition-fast-3
>>
>>I'd expect self-described Catholic supporters of the death penalty here in the
>>States to follow the Pope about as faithfully as self-described Catholics who
>>don't want Roe overturned will.
>>
>>{Atheist Ex-Catholic with a Poli Sci/History BA from a Jesuit University.,
>>here. I also went to Catholic elementary and high school. I was marinated
>> in this stuff as a kid. }
>>
>>My personal view is that while popes may claim to be infallible,
>>juries and judges aren't, so "life without parole" is as far as I'm
>>willing to go. The US constitution does mention:
>
>I should just like to note that I am using the current RC definition
>of "pro-life", however I choose to describe it. Papal infallibility is
>not involved.
>
>>[quote ]
>>
>>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
>>unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... {8th Amendment}
>>
>>[/quote] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#5
>>
>>So since:
>>
>>[quote]
>>
>>Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, or
>>capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction,....
>>
>>[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
>>
>>...it might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to forbid the death penalty.
>>
>>The Supreme Court blocked all executions from 1972 to 1976, so
>>depending on the courts to permanently ban it was a dashed hope,
>>once the state legislatures got to work amending their laws.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Capital_punishment_suspended_(1972)
>>
>>In a country so split between two ideological camps, expecting an amendment
>>banning the death penalty t garner the required supermajority of states is a pipe
>>dream.
>
>Which confirms my assertion the the Supreme Court is /not/ pro-life,
>but merely anti-abortion.
>
>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a recent
>decision that new evidence can be ignored in some situations.

What recent decision would that be?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
news:c1529hdfpf6ucq8h887gm575gqup7ucllv@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:12:22 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Which confirms my assertion the the Supreme Court is /not/
>>pro-life, but merely anti-abortion.
>>
>>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a
>>recent decision that new evidence can be ignored in some
>>situations.
>
> A key role of any judge is evaluating the quality of evidence
> which can range from "this evidence alone seals the case" to
> "OMG that's laughable that anybody would come into this court
> and present it with a straight face"
>
That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of fact."
Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the court applied
the law correctly, and within the Constitution, but they do not (or
at least should not) examine the evidence at all.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:k6629hdknuvj8fdkf2df7i65bvsdg8ir65@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 24 May 2022 09:12:22 -0700, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 00:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>><kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 12:59:05 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:gkv48h93ilq8kgp6o...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> > It is my understanding that, if you check with the Pope,
>>>> > you will find that being pro-life includes all of:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1) opposition to abortion
>>>> > 2) opposition to effective contraception
>>>> > 3) opposition to capital punishment
>>>> >
>>>> > Although not a Roman Catholic, I suggest that the Pope's
>>>> > definition of "pro-life" is reasonably authoritative.
>>>> Only for Catholics. And really, when it comes to the loudest
>>>> of the anti-abortion types in the US, neither they nor the
>>>> Pope would consider tham Catholic (and most of them dont'
>>>> consider Catholics Christian, or even human).
>>>> --
>>>
>>>Earlier, I mentioned the "seamless garment" theory regarding
>>>"pro-life."
>>>
>>>AKA
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethi
>>>
>>>In 2018, Pope Frankie expounded thusly:
>>>
>>>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penal
>>>ty.html
>>>
>>>So, anti-capital-punishment is in the Catechism.
>>>
>>>There has not yet been a papal bull, with Senor Bergoglio
>>>speaking "ex cathedra."
>>>
>>>https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/francis-kills-the-death-pena
>>>lty-for-roman-catholicism/
>>>
>>>Paul VI at least issued this, re: abortion and artificial birth
>>>control.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
>>>
>>>https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/
>>>hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
>>>
>>>But even that wasn't "ex cathedra," or was it ?
>>>
>>>[quote]
>>>
>>> “Ask 5 different theologians to define infallibility and
>>> you’ll get six different answers.”
>>>
>>>[/quote]
>>>
>>>https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-
>>>theologians-take-define-infallibility/?ref_widget=trending&ref_b
>>>log=ecperson&ref_post=afraid-theotokos-catholic-charismatic-carn
>>>al-dormition-fast-3
>>>
>>>I'd expect self-described Catholic supporters of the death
>>>penalty here in the States to follow the Pope about as
>>>faithfully as self-described Catholics who don't want Roe
>>>overturned will.
>>>
>>>{Atheist Ex-Catholic with a Poli Sci/History BA from a Jesuit
>>>University., here. I also went to Catholic elementary and high
>>>school. I was marinated
>>> in this stuff as a kid. }
>>>
>>>My personal view is that while popes may claim to be
>>>infallible, juries and judges aren't, so "life without parole"
>>>is as far as I'm willing to go. The US constitution does
>>>mention:
>>
>>I should just like to note that I am using the current RC
>>definition of "pro-life", however I choose to describe it. Papal
>>infallibility is not involved.
>>
>>>[quote ]
>>>
>>>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>>>infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
>>>Grand Jury... {8th Amendment}
>>>
>>>[/quote] -
>>>https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp#5
>>>
>>>So since:
>>>
>>>[quote]
>>>
>>>Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital
>>>crimes, capital offences, or capital felonies, and vary
>>>depending on the jurisdiction,....
>>>
>>>[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
>>>
>>>...it might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to forbid
>>>the death penalty.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court blocked all executions from 1972 to 1976, so
>>>depending on the courts to permanently ban it was a dashed
>>>hope, once the state legislatures got to work amending their
>>>laws.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_S
>>>tates#Capital_punishment_suspended_(1972)
>>>
>>>In a country so split between two ideological camps, expecting
>>>an amendment banning the death penalty t garner the required
>>>supermajority of states is a pipe dream.
>>
>>Which confirms my assertion the the Supreme Court is /not/
>>pro-life, but merely anti-abortion.
>>
>>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a
>>recent decision that new evidence can be ignored in some
>>situations.
>
> What recent decision would that be?
>

I presume this:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf

N(atuional)P(ropaganda)R(adio)'s take on it is here:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-
challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation

https://tinyurl.com/2p9cfwc9

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
> >> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
> >> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> >><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
> >> >>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
> >> >>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
> >> >>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
> >> >>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
> >> >>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
> >> >>>those assembled.
> >> >>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
> >> >>
> >> >>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
> >> >
> >> >Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
> >> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
> >> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
> >> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
> >> you're crazy.
> >
> >They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
> >demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
> >particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
> >excitement of the moment.
> >
> >Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral
> >vote count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical
> >gear, had radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the
> >more chaotic mob. There's strong evidence of pre-planning,
> >reconnaissance, and more recently, pre-coordination with
> >Trump cronies.
> >
> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?

I guess its time to stop trying to argue with you, since you are
no longer acting in good faith.

This whole subthread has been discussing the attempt to
stop the electoral vote count, throwing the election into the
House. They almost pulled it off.

You knew that.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e5f54225-430f-4b4b-b505-0fa9df2dc72en@googlegroups.com:

> They almost pulled it off.
>
Only in your diseased imagination.

And you know that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:37:47 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>> >> ><jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> >><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>> >> >>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>> >> >>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>> >> >>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>> >> >>>trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>> >> >>>violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>> >> >>>those assembled.
>> >> >>>So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>> >> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>> >> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>> >> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>> >> you're crazy.
>> >
>> >They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
>> >demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
>> >particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
>> >excitement of the moment.
>> >
>> >Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral
>> >vote count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical
>> >gear, had radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the
>> >more chaotic mob. There's strong evidence of pre-planning,
>> >reconnaissance, and more recently, pre-coordination with
>> >Trump cronies.
>> >
>> >What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>> Succeding in what, a live-fire exercise for the SWAT team?
>
>I guess its time to stop trying to argue with you, since you are
>no longer acting in good faith.
>
>This whole subthread has been discussing the attempt to
>stop the electoral vote count, throwing the election into the
>House. They almost pulled it off.
>
>You knew that.

I know no such thing. Why would a bunch of crazies shooting up
Congress throw the count into the House? That only occurs if no
candidate recieves a majority of the electoral votes or there is
deadlock in the Electoral College, neither of which was the case.

On 2022-05-27 7:36 a.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 10:15:44 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:21:13 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 21:36:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:24:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>>>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>>>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>>>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but _that_ part is not controversial. On January 6, 2021, demonstrators
>>>>> trespassed in the Senate building, committing acts of vandalism, and acts of
>>>>> violence against persons, as well as making death threats against some of
>>>>> those assembled.
>>>>> So I am having a bit of trouble understanding your point here.
>>>>
>>>> A handful of crazies is not "an insurrection".
>>>
>>> Ah, but this was neither a "handful" nor were they (all) "crazies".
>> You can assert that less than 0.001% of the population is "many" until
>> you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. And if you think
>> that a handful of people who try to storm the capitol aren't crazy,
>> you're crazy.
>
> They were ambitious, and had just been whipped into a frenzy by a
> demogogue's lies. Most, I think, hadn't arrived at the rally with any
> particular plan to enter the Capitol, but were swept along by the
> excitement of the moment.
>
> Its clear though, that some *did* intend to disrupt the electoral
> vote count (the 'Promise Keepers' group). They dressed in tactical
> gear, had radios, and acted in a coordinated fashion within the
> more chaotic mob. There's strong evidence of pre-planning,
> reconnaissance, and more recently, pre-coordination with
> Trump cronies.
>
> What's frightening is how close they came to succeeding.
>
> pt

....no. They were nowhere near succeeding. It was a plan for idiots
with no hope of succeeding. But the idiots on the scene and the idiot
in the White House didn't know that.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 08:28:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>The crime isn't murder, it's homicide.
>
>Words matter. Which is why lefties like you try to twist the
>meanings.

Homicide isn't a crime - it simply means killing of a person by
another person. I know of one case where the deceased was run over by
a driver and after investigation the sheriff's office declined to
prosecute. Definitely a homicide but can't be called a crime since no
charges were filed.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:40:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A key role of any judge is evaluating the quality of evidence
>> which can range from "this evidence alone seals the case" to
>> "OMG that's laughable that anybody would come into this court
>> and present it with a straight face"
>>
>That's not really true. The trial court is the "trier of fact."
>Appellate courts and SCOTUS examine whether or not the court applied
>the law correctly, and within the Constitution, but they do not (or
>at least should not) examine the evidence at all.

You're right though my main knowledge of the judicial system is not
the US system. As you correctly state the trial judge is the main
judge of fact not the appellate judges. Their territory is how /
whether / if the trial judge correctly applied the law.

In fact I know of cases where appellate judges refused to speak to the
facts of the case altogether other than to insist on the applicability
of the cited precedent.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:k6629hdknuvj8fdkf2df7i65bvsdg8ir65@4ax.com:

>>>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a
>>>recent decision that new evidence can be ignored in some
>>>situations.
>>
>> What recent decision would that be?
>
>I presume this:
>
>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf
>
>N(atuional)P(ropaganda)R(adio)'s take on it is here:
>
>https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-
>challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
>
>https://tinyurl.com/2p9cfwc9

On the contrary - I agree with the proposition that a defendent gets
to decide what is the best defence possible but that right does not
extend to making the judgement AFTER the decision has been rendered.

If new evidence is advanced AFTER trial (for instance as was done by
Stephen Truscott in a celebrated Canadian rape / murder case based on
DNA evidence) then the argument was 'would failing to take this
evidence into account bring the administration of justice into
disrepute?" which is a pretty high bar.

In Truscott's case his life sentence was put aside and the federal
government chose not to retry. He was later given a multi-million
dollar settlement - but no question it was a celebrated case in my
childhood.

And I very much agree that an application for appeal SHOULD be at the
court's discretion and that a high bar should be required to justify a
re-trial long after conviction. Certainly such an order shouldn't be
given just on the defendant's say so.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 23:23:01 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:44:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:k6629hdknuvj8fdkf2df7i65bvsdg8ir65@4ax.com:
>
>>>>Indeed, they appear to be anti-justice as well, judging from a
>>>>recent decision that new evidence can be ignored in some
>>>>situations.
>>>
>>> What recent decision would that be?
>>
>>I presume this:
>>
>>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf
>>
>>N(atuional)P(ropaganda)R(adio)'s take on it is here:
>>
>>https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100852386/supreme-court-hobbles-
>>challenges-by-inmates-based-on-bad-legal-representation
>>
>>https://tinyurl.com/2p9cfwc9
>
>On the contrary - I agree with the proposition that a defendent gets
>to decide what is the best defence possible but that right does not
>extend to making the judgement AFTER the decision has been rendered.
>
>If new evidence is advanced AFTER trial (for instance as was done by
>Stephen Truscott in a celebrated Canadian rape / murder case based on
>DNA evidence) then the argument was 'would failing to take this
>evidence into account bring the administration of justice into
>disrepute?" which is a pretty high bar.
>
>In Truscott's case his life sentence was put aside and the federal
>government chose not to retry. He was later given a multi-million
>dollar settlement - but no question it was a celebrated case in my
>childhood.
>
>And I very much agree that an application for appeal SHOULD be at the
>court's discretion and that a high bar should be required to justify a
>re-trial long after conviction. Certainly such an order shouldn't be
>given just on the defendant's say so.

In any case that ruling was not about appeal, it was about habeus
corpus and only about that. And they didn't say that Federal courts
were prohibited from hearing new evidence, it said that the new
evidence must be shown to the state courts first.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 10:59:04 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:01 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> I suspect that you will find the percentage of Americans who don't
>>> recignize the legitimacy of the current government to be surprisingly
>>> high. But that's not "insurrection". For "insurrection" to happen
>>> they have to try to do something unlawful about it.
>>
>>Like invade a building to stop the peaceful transfer of power...
>
>Again how many of them actually did that as opposed to those who plan
>on going to the polls in November hellbent on "throwing the bastards
>out"?

Seems to me that they had gone to the polls and voted to keep their
guy in and ... lost.

And now were desperately trying to evade reality.

Leading to the question:
Should Donald Trump be listed as a psychelic drug? He is clearly
addictive.

>You seem to be confused on the difference between those two groups.

One was and is upset at losing. Poor babies!

The other is planning to do what they always do -- vote Republican.

Unless, of course, they decide they value their children's lives more
than their firearms.

Or Roe v Wade gets overturned, and the females among them, at least,
find themselves living in a dystopia.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."