On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:09:27 -0400
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:34:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/22/2023 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:14:36 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> >> Sherman) wrote:
> >>
> >>> |
> >>> | A judge has rejected three more attempts by former
> >>> | President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a
> >>> | lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential
> >>> | ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment's
> >>> | "insurrectionist ban."
> >>> |
> >>> | The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District
> >>> | Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces
> >>> | candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his
> >>> | role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a
> >>> | pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the
> >>> | case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this
> >>> | month.
> >>> | ...
> >>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/>
> >>>
> >>> --bks
> >>
> >> Interesting that a judge has ruled that Trump is guilty without the
> >> benefit of a trial. Seems the judge should resign for not
> >> upholding the Constitution.
> >
> >The judge did not rule that Trump was barred from being on the
> >ballot because of 14.3. She merely said she needs to hold a trial to
> >determine whether the Secretary of State has the power to bar Trump
> >(rather than dismissing the case outright at this early stage).
>
> Worse yet the amendment doesn't state who has that power to make the
> determination. One could argue that is congress' power to decide or
> state legislature.

It looks to me like the state the lawsuit was filed in has that power,
and used it to deny Castro the right to challenge Trump's name being
placed on the ballot.

They lower court ruled Castro didn't have the legal standing to bring
the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will not take up a longshot
challenge to Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president because of
his alleged role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

The case was brought by John Anthony Castro, a little-known candidate
for the Republican presidential nomination, who sued Trump earlier this
year in an effort to disqualify him from running for president and
holding the office “given his alleged provision of aid or comfort to
the convicted criminals and insurrectionist that violently attacked our
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

Cut!

A lower court had thrown out Castro’s case, ruling that he lacked the
legal right – or standing – to bring the challenge, and his petition to
the high court had asked the justices to decide whether he did have
standing in the matter.

Cut!

Castro isn’t a serious contender for the 2024 GOP nomination. He hasn’t
met the requirements to participate in any of the GOP debates,...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-ballot-case-supreme-court/index.html

On 10/23/2023 4:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:48:11 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> Interesting that a judge has ruled that Trump is guilty without the
>>> benefit of a trial. Seems the judge should resign for not upholding
>>> the Constitution.
>>
>> Quote the amendment and point out where it mentions convictions.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process

You didn't quote the amendment. You failed.

On 10/23/2023 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:34:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2023 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:14:36 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | A judge has rejected three more attempts by former
>>>> | President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a
>>>> | lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential
>>>> | ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment's
>>>> | "insurrectionist ban."
>>>> |
>>>> | The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District
>>>> | Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces
>>>> | candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his
>>>> | role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a
>>>> | pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the
>>>> | case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this
>>>> | month.
>>>> | ...
>>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/>
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>
>>> Interesting that a judge has ruled that Trump is guilty without the
>>> benefit of a trial. Seems the judge should resign for not upholding
>>> the Constitution.
>>
>> The judge did not rule that Trump was barred from being on the ballot
>> because of 14.3. She merely said she needs to hold a trial to determine
>> whether the Secretary of State has the power to bar Trump (rather than
>> dismissing the case outright at this early stage).
>
> Worse yet the amendment doesn't state who has that power to make the
> determination. One could argue that is congress' power to decide or
> state legislature.

SCOTUS or Congress will have the final say if it comes to that for Trump.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:34:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/23/2023 4:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:34:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2023 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:14:36 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | A judge has rejected three more attempts by former
>>>>> | President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a
>>>>> | lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential
>>>>> | ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment's
>>>>> | "insurrectionist ban."
>>>>> |
>>>>> | The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District
>>>>> | Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces
>>>>> | candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his
>>>>> | role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a
>>>>> | pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the
>>>>> | case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this
>>>>> | month.
>>>>> | ...
>>>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/>
>>>>>
>>>>> --bks
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that a judge has ruled that Trump is guilty without the
>>>> benefit of a trial. Seems the judge should resign for not upholding
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>> The judge did not rule that Trump was barred from being on the ballot
>>> because of 14.3. She merely said she needs to hold a trial to determine
>>> whether the Secretary of State has the power to bar Trump (rather than
>>> dismissing the case outright at this early stage).
>>
>> Worse yet the amendment doesn't state who has that power to make the
>> determination. One could argue that is congress' power to decide or
>> state legislature.
>
>SCOTUS or Congress will have the final say if it comes to that for Trump.

Oh it will because dems will stop at nothing to stop Trump.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:08:12 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> Tell us how it is determined that one meets the requirement of the
>> ammendment then. Someone's claim?
>>
>
>No one is certain. Likely it will be left to courts.

One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
process.

NoBody wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:08:12 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> Tell us how it is determined that one meets the requirement of the
>>> ammendment then. Someone's claim?
>>>
>>
>> No one is certain. Likely it will be left to courts.
>
> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
> process.
>

Courts can make it specific.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 04:35:59 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:08:12 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> Tell us how it is determined that one meets the requirement of the
>>>> ammendment then. Someone's claim?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No one is certain. Likely it will be left to courts.
>>
>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>> process.
>>
>
>Courts can make it specific.

Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
DO NOT write law. *Perhaps* they can direct a state legislature to be
more specific in the wording of the law (which already is vague) but
they can't write law. If they do, they are violating Separation of
Powers.

NoBody wrote:
>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>> process.
>>>
>> Courts can make it specific.
> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps* they can direct a state legislature to be

This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
specific circumstances.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>> Courts can make it specific.
>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps* they can direct a state legislature to be
>
>This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>specific circumstances.

You just said a whole lot of nothing. Once again,the courts don't
write law. The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
amendment has higher priority over another. If an amendment says that
one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
other amendents. In other words, due process must apply and you must
be found guilty of sedition.

Duh...

NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps* they can direct a state legislature to be
>>
>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>> specific circumstances.
>
> You just said a whole lot of nothing. Once again,the courts don't
> write law. The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
> amendment has higher priority over another. If an amendment says that
> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
> other amendents. In other words, due process must apply and you must
> be found guilty of sedition.

Taking this court to be decided is due process.

And you're still aspiring to be an idiot.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>
>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>> specific circumstances.
>>
>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>> be found guilty of sedition.
>
> Taking this court to be decided is due process.

It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
betting on the former).

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the
>>>>>>> election
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common
>>>>> misconseption. Courts
>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state
>>>>> legislature to be
>>>>
>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>
>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note
>>> that no
>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment
>>> says that
>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with
>>> all the
>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and
>>> you must
>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>
>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>
> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know
> (I am betting on the former).

Which is something a court would consider and whether it's even a
matter for the judiciary.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/26/2023 8:02 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>
>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>
>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>
>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>
> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am betting
> on the former).

Some naturalized citizen in Colorado sued the secretary of state for refusing to
put him on a presidential primary ballot as a candidate. The secretary refused
to put the man on the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen of the
U.S. The trial court ruled the secretary had that power, and the man appealed to
the 10th circuit. Neal Gorsuch wrote the appeals court opinion, and he affirmed
that the power to deny placement on the ballot due to ineligibility is
legitimately a power of the secretary of state:

Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to /assume the office/ of
president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination
for the state to deny him /a place on the ballot/. But, as the magistrate
judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s
legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of
the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who
are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. [case citations]

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for
publication is denied.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01018907241.pdf

CREW, helping to push the current case in Colorado to keep the insurrectionist
Trump off the ballot, really emphasized Gorsuch's opinion before Colorado
District Judge Sarah Wallace in opposing the insurrection Trump's request to
throw out the suit. Wallace *cited* Gorsuch's opinion in denying the
insurrectionist Trump's motion to dismiss.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/index.html

Yeah, I cited CNN. Watch the neo-Nazis' heads explode. CNN is a highly reputable
news source. If they report that Judge Wallace cited Gorsuch's opinion, then you
can be assured she cited Gorsuch's opinion.

--
Canoza's law: Hartung the homophobe is *always* wrong.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>
>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>
>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>
>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>
>It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>betting on the former).

Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.

Swill
--
Democrats make me feel ashamed of being American.
Republicans make me feel ashamed of being human.

https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>
>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>
>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>> betting on the former).
>
> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.

A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
an election.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 06:56:38 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps* they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>
>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>> specific circumstances.
>>
>> You just said a whole lot of nothing. Once again,the courts don't
>> write law. The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>> amendment has higher priority over another. If an amendment says that
>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>> other amendents. In other words, due process must apply and you must
>> be found guilty of sedition.
>
>Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>

Please retype the above in English.

>And you're still aspiring to be an idiot.

I'm not the guy who posts when drunk.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>
>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>
>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>
>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>
>It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>betting on the former).

Due Process.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>
>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>
>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>> betting on the former).
>>
>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>
>A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>an election.

Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
required mail in voting in 2020.

NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>
>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>
>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>> betting on the former).
>
> Due Process.
>

Which will likely begin in court deciding how to decide. Praps
they will decide this is political process they have to stay out
of. Praps not.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 10/27/2023 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>
>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>
>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>> betting on the former).
>
> Due Process.

.... which may or may not require a conviction.

On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>
>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>> betting on the former).
>>>
>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>
>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>> an election.
>
> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
> required mail in voting in 2020.

If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has been
stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.

On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>
>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>> betting on the former).
>>>
>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>
>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>> an election.
>
> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat [sic] politician

There are no "Democrat" politicians.

> who required mail in voting in 2020.

No one "required" mail in voting in 2020. Implementing mail in voting is not
stealing an election.

On 10/27/2023 7:45 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for
>>>> the 14th to be
>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to.  I want the voters to decide.
>>>
>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>> an election.
>>
>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>
> If mail-in voting steals an election,

It doesn't. What Kremlin Girl / Bit of Nothingness wrote is complete bullshit.
She still is operating under the delusion that mail in voting favors the
Democrats and that implementing it amounts to "stealing" an election. That's
bullshit.

On 10/27/2023 9:07 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <7cQ_M.179149$0UVe.145705@fx17.iad>, rc.@hendrie.con says...
>>
>> On 10/26/2023 11:33 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the election
>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common misconseption. Courts
>>>>>>>>>> DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing law
>>>>>>>>> to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law to
>>>>>>>>> specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts don't
>>>>>>>> write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is note that no
>>>>>>>> amendment has higher priority over another.  If an amendment says that
>>>>>>>> one can't be President due to sediition, you must comply with all the
>>>>>>>> other amendents.  In other words, due process must apply and you must
>>>>>>>> be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know (I am
>>>>>> betting on the former).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying action for the 14th to be
>>>>> used and frankly, I don't want them to. I want the voters to decide.
>>>>
>>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to steal
>>>> an election.
>>>
>>> But that's exactly what democracy is.
>>
>> That's not what democracy is. At any given time, there is a set of electoral
>> rules. It is not "democracy" for one side ? the *losing* side, the *minority* ?
>> suddenly to refuse to abide by those rules and to claim victory in an election
>> they *lost*. "The voters" did *not* approve of Trump's attempt to steal the
>> election.
>
> He didn't.

He did.

> The election was already over.

He was trying to steal a second term after having lost the election. That's
stealing the election. You voted for a thief, and you hoped his attempted theft
would succeed. Happily democracy, decency and America, you didn't get what you
wanted. You lost. You're a loser.

>>
>>>
>>> No, man, I don't want to spend the next several years in a fight about political
>>> persecution and gamesmanship. The hard right must be rejected by the GOP and the GOP must
>>> understand the price they paid for power from the nineties is too high. Only letting him
>>> run will accomplish that. I want to see if Trump and his preferred candidates can get
>>> into office or not.
>>
>> Bullshit. Section 14.3 is *part* of our electoral rules right now.
>> Insurrectionists who previously swore an oath to defend, uphold and support the
>> Constitution are *ineligible* to be president (or any other office), and we have
>> to find out how to enforce it. It applies to Trump.
>
> No insurrection.

There was, of course, an insurrection, but happily, it was put down. If you
fuckers try it again, thousands of you are going to be Babbitted.

Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:uhgiep$2ag4p$3@dont-email.me:

> On 10/27/2023 4:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:43:52 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/2023 2:27 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/2023 6:56 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:15:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One should never play with vague law to interfere with the
>>>>>>>>>>> election process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Courts can make it specific.
>>>>>>>>> Actually no they can't and that shows the common
>>>>>>>>> misconseption. Courts DO NOT write law.*Perhaps*  they can
>>>>>>>>> direct a state legislature to be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is one of purposes of courts. Bills that are too specific
>>>>>>>> become illegal bills of attainder. The courts apply existing
>>>>>>>> law to varied circumstances. That means fitting a general law
>>>>>>>> to specific circumstances.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said a whole lot of nothing.  Once again,the courts
>>>>>>> don't write law.  The best the courts could do in this case is
>>>>>>> note that no amendment has higher priority over another.  If an
>>>>>>> amendment says that one can't be President due to sediition, you
>>>>>>> must comply with all the other amendents.  In other words, due
>>>>>>> process must apply and you must be found guilty of sedition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking this court to be decided is due process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be. Or, it might require a conviction. We don't yet know
>>>>> (I am betting on the former).
>>>>
>>>> Either way, a court MUST decide he's guilty of a disqualifying
>>>> action for the 14th to be used and frankly, I don't want them to.
>>>> I want the voters to decide.
>>>
>>> A democracy cannot tolerate the voters approving of an attempt to
>>> steal an election.
>>
>> Hmm then we better start prosecuting those Democrat politician who
>> required mail in voting in 2020.
>
> If mail-in voting steals an election, every election in Oregon has
> been stolen for almost 20 years. What nonsense.
>

Trump, While Attacking Mail Voting,
Casts Mail Ballot Again
August 19, 2020

https://tinyurl.com/2trvz2xy