:-) :-) :-)

No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See to enter another war
theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime, and its US ally).

No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to run
for the presidency in one US state. Yes, I know it is too early to
celebrate as this decision will go the to US Supreme Court. But at least
this was a promising ending to a horribly disgusting political shit-show
that went down in that country since the beginning of this year.

Now if only Benjamin Netanyahu as well as his HAMAS counterpart had a
lovely lethal stroke or heart attack, ASAP, I'd say this year would have
had a perfect ending.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Ördög wrote on 21/12/23 8:12 am:
> :-) :-) :-)
>
> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See

So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime,
> and its US ally).
>
> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to
> run for the presidency in one US state.

"to run for the presidency" or to run as a potential Republican
Candidate to the role??

> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision will go
> the to US Supreme Court.

If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (federal) Supreme
Court?? Ir do they have state-based similar courts, like our High Courts??

> But at least this was a promising ending to a horribly disgusting
> political shit-show that went down in that country since the
> beginning of this year.
>
> Now if only Benjamin Netanyahu as well as his HAMAS counterpart had a
> lovely lethal stroke or heart attack, ASAP, I'd say this year would
> have had a perfect ending.
>
Welllll, not wanting to wish severe medical conditions on anyone, but it
would be nice to have a change!!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Ördög wrote

>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See

> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

Why would it ?

>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime, and
>> its US ally).

>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to run
>> for the presidency in one US state.

> "to run for the presidency"

Yep

> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??

Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.

>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision will go
>> the to US Supreme Court.

> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal) Supreme
> Court??

Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court, constitutional
matters.

> Ir do they have state-based similar courts,

Nope.

> like our High Courts??

We only have the one High Court and its federal too.

Daniel65 wrote:
> Ördög wrote on 21/12/23 8:12 am:
>> :-)    :-)     :-)
>>
>> No1:  Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>
> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

Let us hope that Labor finally grows a spine. I would not want to see a
single Australian die in someone else's war and absolutely no benefit to
Australia.

>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime,
>> and its US ally).
>>
>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to run
>> for the presidency in one US state.
>
> "to run for the presidency" or to run as a potential Republican
> Candidate to the role??

In end effect it is about the ability to hold a public office. That is
what a section in the 14th Amendment to the US constitution prohibits if
one was found to be part of an insurrection attempt directly or indirectly.

>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision will go
>> the to US Supreme Court.
>
> If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (federal) Supreme
> Court?? Ir do they have state-based similar courts, like our High Courts??

Trump wants this challenged at US Supreme Court because there he can
face a friendly Republican dominated court. His appeal can either be
refused or be taken up by Supreme Court, but in any case this issue is a
first in US history so it will be interesting to see how it proceeds.

>> But at least this was a promising ending to a horribly disgusting
>> political shit-show that went down in that country since the
>> beginning of this year.
>>
>> Now if only Benjamin Netanyahu as well as his HAMAS counterpart had a
>> lovely lethal stroke or heart attack, ASAP, I'd say this year would
>> have had a perfect ending.
>>
> Welllll, not wanting to wish severe medical conditions on anyone, but it
> would be nice to have a change!!

Let us hope that some sort of "Deus ex Machina" will solve what can't be
otherwise resolved by rational politics and normal human common sense.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Petz posts away, well GoonBag-lubricated, ready for his all loving
alt-right Xmas hates:

> Ördög
>>
>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See to enter another war
>> theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime, and its US ally).
>>
> Albo has a LOT of meddle eastern Moslems he wants as friends

What is wrong with having friends?
Are you and alt-right ilk just envious about others having friends?

> He want's them to finance our Aukus submarine's

Amazing...all these interesting things which go on in your alternate
reality!

> He's releasing these luverly terrorist from prison as we speak!

If you say so ...

> Wonder if he will make him a citizen!

Pfffffffft! You are trying so hard! Yet, still failing!

> https://youtu.be/

I have told you before and now telling you again:
No sane and rational reader will click on your crazy links w/o any
indication about their contents nor their authors.

> Melbourne Muslim Kafir guilty of 'Terror Plot' claimed dole for 19 years

Was that person found guilty of claiming unemployment benefits (assuming
that such was the case) or was it all about "whatever terrorism"?
Anywho WTF has Albo to do with it? Stop ingesting mental rubbish from
your Gestapo Voldemort Dutton and allied media outlet sources.

Do you realise Petz dear, that on this planet Earth, on the continent of
Australia there is a separation of powers in the governance of this
nation...thus Albo can not make arbitrary decisions involving the judiciary!
Is it that NOT the case in your alternate Universe, Petz dear???

>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to run
>> for the presidency in one US state. Yes, I know it is too early to
>> celebrate as this decision will go the to US Supreme Court. But at least
>> this was a promising ending to a horribly disgusting political shit-show
>> that went down in that country since the beginning of this year.
>>
> Anarchists never want liked, popular persons in charge

You know exactly as much about what anarchists want as you know about
any political/econopolitical ideologies ... Zero, Zilch, Nort, Nada,
fuck all! :-P :-P :-P

But there is a "tiny-tiny" ( :-P ) truth to what you've just written.
Anarchists (both on the far-right and far-left) do hate anyone or
anything dictating them anything. They do not want to see any state powers.

Now, as what "anarchists" have to do with what I have stated in my OP
still remains completely inexplicable to normal, sober and rational humans.

> they kill or imprison them,
> Anarchists have installed the most hater, perverted criminal in charge
> Knowing this will destroy America.

*WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING*
*Major newsgroup emergency!*

/Run, hide and hold your collective breaths, everyone!/

Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !

> Trump is still able to stand in Colorado.
> It is the SCOTUS that will o[date you on reality, in January 2024

The Supreme Court will indeed either decide on it or throw it back to
the States top do what they like. We'll see!

>> Now if only Benjamin Netanyahu as well as his HAMAS counterpart had a
>> lovely lethal stroke or heart attack, ASAP, I'd say this year would have
>> had a perfect ending.
>>
> HAMAS are a UN declared terrorist group,

And Israel is ruled by a corrupt genocidal maniac who has clearly
indicated his intention of exterminating Palestinians. IDF is now
committing war crimes which are against International law.

Try harder Petz dear!

> so Israel is going to end them

"Ending" any ethnic group is a crime against humanity. The World has
already made such judgements in case of the Third Reich and also in the
case of the Balkan War.

You are clearly a fascist/neo-Nazi enjoying the bloodbath in the Middle
east. So much for your pretend Xtianity. (Hint: The Pope himself has
declared that the deluge of killings committed by the IDF are intolerable.)

> Already Albo is inviting them to Australia.

Give it up Petz! You simply waste time, good bandwidth and lovely
electrons pushing such retarded LNP manufactured anti-Labor propaganda
bullshit. You'll find no sane reader in this newsgroup who is willing to
lap up such verbal vomit.

NOTE:
Your idiotic extremist and/or Xtian fundy hate propaganda and high
octane Goon-bag fumes induced fantasy sig (that quite often contains
uncredited, therefore clearly plagiarised material pinched from
countless alt-right sources) was flushed down the gurgler, as always,
without reading!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Rod Speed wrote on 22/12/23 6:39 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Ördög wrote
>
>>>  No1:  Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>
>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>
> Why would it ?
>
>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime,
>>> and its US ally).
>
>>>  No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to
>>> run for the presidency in one US state.
>
>> "to run for the presidency"
>
> Yep
>
>> or to run as a potential Republican  Candidate to the role??
>
> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>
>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision will go
>>> the to US Supreme Court.
>
>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal) Supreme
>> Court??
>
> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court, constitutional
> matters.
>
>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>
> Nope.
>
>> like our High  Courts??
>
> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.

Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State = Supreme
Court!!

--
Daniel

Ördög wrote on 22/12/23 8:24 am:

<Snip>

>                      Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !

Memory failing me .... does Petzl post via Google Groups??

Eternal-September (and, I think, a lot of other UseNet ISPs) have
filtered out all GG posts for a couple of weeks or so, and I'm only
seeing Petzl's posts when they're quoted by someone else!!
--
Daniel

On 22/12/2023 8:07 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Ördög wrote on 22/12/23 8:24 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>>                       Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !
>
> Memory failing me .... does Petzl post via Google Groups??
>
> Eternal-September (and, I think, a lot of other UseNet ISPs) have
> filtered out all GG posts for a couple of weeks or so, and I'm only
> seeing Petzl's posts when they're quoted by someone else!!

That is truly a blessing......

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Ördög wrote

>>>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See

>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

>> Why would it ?

>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac regime,
>>>> and its US ally).

>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found ineligible to
>>>> run for the presidency in one US state.

>>> "to run for the presidency"

>> Yep

>>> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??

>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.

>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision will go
>>>> the to US Supreme Court.

>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal) Supreme
>>> Court??

>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court, constitutional
>> matters.

>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,

>> Nope.

>>> like our High Courts??

>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.

> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State = Supreme
> Court!!

The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional matters.

Daniel65
> Ördög

>
>>   Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !
>
> Memory failing me .... does Petzl post via Google Groups??
>
> Eternal-September (and, I think, a lot of other UseNet ISPs) have
> filtered out all GG posts for a couple of weeks or so, and I'm only
> seeing Petzl's posts when they're quoted by someone else!!

I can still see on this computer Petz's idiocies because I use here
EWEKA as access provider. However, on my main computer I also use
Eternal September so no idiot posts from Petz. I just can't understand
why he insists on using GG as he clearly have Usenet access via another
provider as well.

I have told him already that I would block Google Groups locally so he'd
better stop using GG or could only preach to himself and some of the
cretins there.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Rod Speed wrote on 23/12/23 4:16 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Ördög wrote
>
>>>>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>
>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>
>>> Why would it ?
>
>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>> regime, and its US ally).
>
>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.
>
>>>> "to run for the presidency"
>
>>> Yep
>
>>>> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??
>
>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>
>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.
>
>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>> Supreme Court??
>
>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>> constitutional matters.
>
>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> like our High Courts??
>
>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.
>
>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State =
>> Supreme Court!!
>
> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
> matters.

Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P

So that would mean, it seems, that the answer to my question of a couple
of post back ....

"If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State) Supreme
Court??" .... YES!
"Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
Courts??" ... YES!
--
Daniel

Fran wrote on 22/12/23 10:14 pm:
> On 22/12/2023 8:07 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Ördög wrote on 22/12/23 8:24 am:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>                       Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !
>>
>> Memory failing me .... does Petzl post via Google Groups??
>>
>> Eternal-September (and, I think, a lot of other UseNet ISPs) have
>> filtered out all GG posts for a couple of weeks or so, and I'm only
>> seeing Petzl's posts when they're quoted by someone else!!
>
> That is truly a blessing......

Ah!! Well, it's THAT time of year, isn't it?? ;-P
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Ördög wrote

>>>>>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See

>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

>>>> Why would it ?

>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).

>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.

>>>>> "to run for the presidency"

>>>> Yep

>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??

>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.

>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.

>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>>> Supreme Court??

>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>>> constitutional matters.

>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,

>>>> Nope.

>>>>> like our High Courts??

>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.

>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State >>> Supreme Court!!

>> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>> matters.

> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...

But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High
Court that deals with constitutional issues.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P

But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals
with the more important legal matters in NSW.

> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question of a couple
> of post back ....

> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State) Supreme
> Court??" .... YES!

There is no such thing as a state based decision
and the state supreme court is supreme in name
only and isnt even the most senior court in NSW.

> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
> Courts??" ... YES!

Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state
courts and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.

On 23/12/2023 7:41 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 23/12/23 4:16 am:
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Ördög wrote
>>
>>>>>> No1:  Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>>
>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>>
>>>> Why would it ?
>>
>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).
>>
>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.
>>
>>>>> "to run for the presidency"
>>
>>>> Yep
>>
>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican  Candidate to the role??
>>
>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.
>>
>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>>> Supreme Court??
>>
>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>>> constitutional matters.
>>
>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>>
>>>> Nope.
>>
>>>>> like our High  Courts??
>>
>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.
>>
>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State =
>>> Supreme Court!!
>>
>> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>> matters.
>
> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P
>
> So that would mean, it seems, that the answer to my question of a couple
> of post back ....
>
> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State) Supreme
> Court??" .... YES!
> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
> Courts??" ... YES!

Reading this is doing my head in......

On 23/12/2023 7:44 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Fran wrote on 22/12/23 10:14 pm:
>> On 22/12/2023 8:07 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Ördög wrote on 22/12/23 8:24 am:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>                       Petz has now reached inebriation level GoonCon4 !
>>>
>>> Memory failing me .... does Petzl post via Google Groups??
>>>
>>> Eternal-September (and, I think, a lot of other UseNet ISPs) have
>>> filtered out all GG posts for a couple of weeks or so, and I'm only
>>> seeing Petzl's posts when they're quoted by someone else!!
>>
>> That is truly a blessing......
>
> Ah!! Well, it's THAT time of year, isn't it?? ;-P

Snort.....

Rod Speed wrote on 24/12/23 8:02 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>>> Ördög wrote
>
>>>>>>> No1:  Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>
>>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>
>>>>> Why would it ?
>
>>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).
>
>>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.
>
>>>>>> "to run for the presidency"
>
>>>>> Yep
>
>>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican  Candidate to the role??
>
>>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.
>
>>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>>>> Supreme Court??
>
>>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>>>> constitutional matters.
>
>>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>
>>>>> Nope.
>
>>>>>> like our High  Courts??
>
>>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.
>
>>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State =
>>>> Supreme Court!!
>
>>>  The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>>> matters.
>
>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>
> But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High
> Court that deals with constitutional issues.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
>> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P
>
> But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals
> with the more important legal matters in NSW.
>
>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question of a
>> couple  of post back ....
>
>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State)
>> Supreme Court??" .... YES!
>
> There is no such thing as a state based decision
> and the state supreme court is supreme in name
> only and isnt even the most senior court in NSW.
>
>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
>> Courts??" ... YES!
>
> Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state
> courts

Gee Whiz, I would have thought the 'We' in "We only have the one High
Court and its federal too." would suggest WE were discussing (at that
point) Australian Courts, Roddles!

> and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.

Don't they?? O.K.!
--
Daniel

Fran wrote on 24/12/23 10:13 am:
> On 23/12/2023 7:41 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote on 23/12/23 4:16 am:
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>>> Ördög wrote
>>>
>>>>>>> No1:  Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>>>
>>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>>>
>>>>> Why would it ?
>>>
>>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).
>>>
>>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.
>>>
>>>>>> "to run for the presidency"
>>>
>>>>> Yep
>>>
>>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican  Candidate to the role??
>>>
>>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>>>> Supreme Court??
>>>
>>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>>>> constitutional matters.
>>>
>>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> like our High  Courts??
>>>
>>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.
>>>
>>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State =
>>>> Supreme Court!!
>>>
>>> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>>> matters.
>>
>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>
>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
>> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P
>>
>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answer to my question of a
>> couple of post back ....
>>
>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State)
>> Supreme Court??" .... YES!
>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
>> Courts??" ... YES!
>
> Reading this is doing my head in......
>
Oh!! Well, you rest and relax!! There are more important things to be
concentrating on now!!

--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>>>> Ördög wrote

>>>>>>>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See

>>>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!

>>>>>> Why would it ?

>>>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>>>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).

>>>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>>>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.

>>>>>>> "to run for the presidency"

>>>>>> Yep

>>>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??

>>>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.

>>>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>>>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.

>>>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>>>>>>> Supreme Court??

>>>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>>>>>> constitutional matters.

>>>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>> like our High Courts??

>>>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.

>>>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State >>>>> Supreme Court!!

>>>> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>>>> matters.

>>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...

>> But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High
>> Court that deals with constitutional issues.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
>>> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P

>> But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals
>> with the more important legal matters in NSW.

>>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question of a
>>> couple of post back ....

>>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State)
>>> Supreme Court??" .... YES!

>> There is no such thing as a state based decision
>> and the state supreme court is supreme in name
>> only and isnt even the most senior court in NSW.

>>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
>>> Courts??" ... YES!

>> Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state
>> courts

> Gee Whiz, I would have thought the 'We' in "We only have the one High
> Court and its federal too." would suggest WE were discussing (at that
> point) Australian Courts, Roddles!

That wasnt relevant to your question.

>> and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.

> Don't they?? O.K.!

petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> > Rod Speed wrote
>> >> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> >>> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> >>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>>>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> >>>>>>> Ördög wrote
>>
>> >>>>>>>> No1: Albo refused to send warships to the Red See
>>
>> >>>>>>> So far! But I can see things changing in the New Year!
>>
>> >>>>>> Why would it ?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> to enter another war theater (supporting a genocidal maniac
>> >>>>>>>> regime, and its US ally).
>>
>> >>>>>>>> No2: The tangerine menace from Mar-a-Lardo was found
>> >>>>>>>> ineligible to run for the presidency in one US state.
>>
>> >>>>>>> "to run for the presidency"
>>
>> >>>>>> Yep
>>
>> >>>>>>> or to run as a potential Republican Candidate to the role??
>>
>> >>>>>> Nope, that's not what is banned by the constitution.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I know it is too early to celebrate as this decision
>> >>>>>>>> will go the to US Supreme Court.
>>
>> >>>>>>> If it's a 'State-based' decision can itgo to the (federal)
>> >>>>>>> Supreme Court??
>>
>> >>>>>> Yep. That's one of the roles of their supreme court,
>> >>>>>> constitutional matters.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Or do they have state-based similar courts,
>>
>> >>>>>> Nope.
>>
>> >>>>>>> like our High Courts??
>>
>> >>>>>> We only have the one High Court and its federal too.
>>
>> >>>>> Opps! I had them backwards .... Federal = High Court, State >> >>>>> Supreme Court!!
>>
>> >>>> The supreme court does not have jurisdiction on constitutional
>> >>>> matters.
>>
>> >>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>>
>> >> But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High
>> >> Court that deals with constitutional issues.
>>
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>
>> >>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have jurisdiction on
>> >>> constitutional matters" ..... at least for NSW!! ;-P
>>
>> >> But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals
>> >> with the more important legal matters in NSW.
>>
>> >>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question of a
>> >>> couple of post back ....
>>
>> >>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT State)
>> >>> Supreme Court??" .... YES!
>>
>> >> There is no such thing as a state based decision
>> >> and the state supreme court is supreme in name
>> >> only and isnt even the most senior court in NSW.
>>
>> >>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our (EDIT) Supreme
>> >>> Courts??" ... YES!
>>
>> >> Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state
>> >> courts
>>
>> > Gee Whiz, I would have thought the 'We' in "We only have the one High
>> > Court and its federal too." would suggest WE were discussing (at that
>> > point) Australian Courts, Roddles!
>> That wasnt relevant to your question.
>> >> and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.
>>
>> > Don't they?? O.K.!
>>
> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
> constitutional change?

It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and
it hasnt been changed that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

Rod Speed wrote on 25/12/23 12:06 pm:
> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

<Snip>

>>>>>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>>>
>>>>> But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High Court that
>>>>> deals with constitutional issues.
>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>>
>>>>>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have
>>>>>> jurisdiction on constitutional matters" ..... at least for
>>>>>> NSW!! ;-P
>>>
>>>>> But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals with the
>>>>> more important legal matters in NSW.
>>>
>>>>>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question
>>>>>> of a couple of post back ....
>>>
>>>>>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT
>>>>>> State) Supreme Court??" .... YES!
>>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as a state based decision and the
>>>>> state supreme court is supreme in name only and isnt even the
>>>>> most senior court in NSW.
>>>
>>>>>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our
>>>>>> (EDIT) Supreme Courts??" ... YES!
>>>
>>>>> Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state
>>>>> courts
>>>
>>>> Gee Whiz, I would have thought the 'We' in "We only have the
>>>> one High Court and its federal too." would suggest WE were
>>>> discussing (at that point) Australian Courts, Roddles!
>>> That wasnt relevant to your question.
>>>>> and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.
>>>
>>>> Don't they?? O.K.!
>>>
>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>> constitutional change?
>
> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it hasnt
> been changed that way.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

Well, sort of, Roddles ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

Part of First Para ....
"This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
*some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament, and some sections CAN be
*ONLY* be altered by Referendum.

At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Daniel65 <dani...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

>>>>>>> Seems New South Wales *DOES* have a constitution ...
>>>>
>>>>>> But doesnt have any state equivalent of the High Court that
>>>>>> deals with constitutional issues.
>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm guessing the NSW Supreme Court *DOES* "have
>>>>>>> jurisdiction on constitutional matters" ..... at least for
>>>>>>> NSW!! ;-P
>>>>
>>>>>> But it is nothing like the High Court since it deals with the
>>>>>> more important legal matters in NSW.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So that would mean, it seems, that the answerto my question
>>>>>>> of a couple of post back ....
>>>>
>>>>>>> "If it's a 'State-based' decision can it go to the (EDIT
>>>>>>> State) Supreme Court??" .... YES!
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as a state based decision and the
>>>>>> state supreme court is supreme in name only and isnt even the
>>>>>> most senior court in NSW.
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Or do they have state-based similar courts, like our
>>>>>>> (EDIT) Supreme Courts??" ... YES!
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, because the question was about US courts, not Oz state courts
>>>>
>>>>> Gee Whiz, I would have thought the 'We' in "We only have the
>>>>> one High Court and its federal too." would suggest WE were
>>>>> discussing (at that point) Australian Courts, Roddles!
>>>> That wasnt relevant to your question.
>>>>>> and the USA does not have any state supreme courts at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Don't they?? O.K.!
>>>>
>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>>> constitutional change?

>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it hasnt
>> been changed that way.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

> Well, sort of, Roddles ....

Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

What was the point of repeating the link ?

> Part of First Para ....
> "This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
> Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
> Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
> *some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,

Duh.

> and some sections CAN be *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.

You need to read the entire article and
when you do you will find it doesnt say that.

> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!

The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.

Rod Speed wrote on 26/12/23 4:11 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

<Snip>

>>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>>>> constitutional change?
>
>>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it
>>> hasnt been changed that way.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....
>
> Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

Well, sort of, Roddles ....

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
> What was the point of repeating the link ?

Seems you didn't read it right the first time, Roddles!

>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of
>> New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through
>> ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can only be
>> amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>
>> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,
>
> Duh.

You seemed to think there was *NO* alteration, Roddles.

>> and some sections CAN be *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.
>
> You need to read the entire article and when you do you will find it
> doesnt say that.

But the portion I did read *did state it* , Roddles!! Why should I
bother reading any more .... unless there is a section that says to
ignore those sections that Roddles disagrees with!

>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>
> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.

Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

Part of First Para ....
"This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
*some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament, and some sections CAN be
*ONLY* be altered by Referendum.

At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>>>>> constitutional change?

>>>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it
>>>> hasnt been changed that way.

>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....

>> Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

> Well, sort of, Roddles ....

>> Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>> What was the point of repeating the link ?

> Seems you didn't read it right the first time, Roddles!

We'll see...

And there is no point in repeating the link given that its my link,

>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of
>>> New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through
>>> ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can only be
>>> amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

>>> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,

>> Duh.

> You seemed to think there was *NO* alteration, Roddles.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always.

I JUST said that any change doesnt have to be by REFERENDUM.

>>> and some sections CAN be *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.

>> You need to read the entire article and when you do you will find it
>> doesnt say that.

> But the portion I did read *did state it* , Roddles!!

But that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.

> Why should I bother reading any more ....

Because that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.

>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!

>> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.

> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!

Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

> Part of First Para ....
> "This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
> Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
> Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
> *some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished as the
full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool like you.

Rod Speed wrote on 27/12/2023 4:50 am:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever had a referendum for NSW's
>>>>>> constitutional change?
>
>>>>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it
>>>>> hasnt been changed that way.
>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
>>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....
>
>>>  Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.
>
>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....
>
>>>  Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.
>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
>>>  What was the point of repeating the link ?
>
>> Seems you didn't read it right the first time, Roddles!
>
> We'll see...
>
> And there is no point in repeating the link given that its my link,
>
>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of
>>>> New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through
>>>> ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can only be
>>>> amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>
>>>> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,
>
>>>  Duh.
>
>> You seemed to think there was *NO* alteration, Roddles.
>
> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always.
>
> I JUST said that any change doesnt have to be by REFERENDUM.
>
>>>> and some sections CAN be  *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.
>
>>>  You need to read the entire article and when you do you will find it
>>> doesnt say that.
>
>> But the portion I did read *did state it* , Roddles!!
>
> But that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.
>
>> Why should I  bother reading any more ....
>
> Because that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.
>
>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!
>
>>>  The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.
>
>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!
>
> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.

THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902
>
>> Part of First Para ....
>> "This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
>> Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
>> Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however
>> *some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "
>
> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished as the
> full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool like you.

Nope!! Can't find where I'm wrong, Roddles, perhaps YOU, Roddles, could
point it out, Roddles ...... OR, hang on, isn't wikipedia User-editable,
Roddles?? Prehaps you, Roddles, could alter it so it more fully, more
correctly reflects your views, Roddles!!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Rod can you remember if NSW has ever hada referendum for NSW's
>>>>>>> constitutional change?

>>>>>> It isnt the method used to change the NSW constitution and it
>>>>>> hasnt been changed that way.

>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>>>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....

>>>> Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

>>> Well, sort of, Roddles ....

>>>> Not sort of, what I said is completely accurate.

>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>>>> What was the point of repeating the link ?

>>> Seems you didn't read it right the first time, Roddles!

>> We'll see...

>> And there is no point in repeating the link given that its my link,

>>>>> Part of First Para .... "This act created the foundation of the
>>>>> Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of
>>>>> New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through
>>>>> ordinary Acts of Parliament, however *some sections can only be
>>>>> amended through a referendum of NSW voters* "

>>>>> So some sections CAN be altered by Parliament,

>>>> Duh.

>>> You seemed to think there was *NO* alteration, Roddles.

>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, as always.

>> I JUST said that any change doesnt have to be by REFERENDUM.

>>>>> and some sections CAN be *ONLY* be altered by Referendum.

>>>> You need to read the entire article and when you do you will find it
>>>> doesnt say that.

>>> But the portion I did read *did state it* , Roddles!!

>> But that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.

>>> Why should I bother reading any more ....

>> Because that bit isnt an accurate statement of how it gets changed.

>>>>> At least according to your Constitution, Roddles!!

>>>> The constitution doesnt say that. Read it.

>>> Yeap!! Read it, Roddles, and guess what?? It *DOES* state it!!

>> Thats not the constitution, fuckwit.

> THAT's what we are referring to, Roddles!!

That bit is from the wiki article, NOT THE CONSTITUION, fuckwit.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act_1902

>>> Part of First Para ....
>>> "This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and
>>> Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the
>>> Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament,
>>> however
>>> *some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters*

>> In fact that is ONLY if the upper house is being abolished as the
>> full text says clearly enough for even an ignorant fool like you.

> Nope!!

Yep.

> Can't find where I'm wrong,

Yep, you actually are that stupid.