Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees:

On 6/10/2025 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/10/2025 12:41 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 6/10/2025 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/10/2025 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/10/2025 5:59 AM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 05:09:37 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 6/9/2025 11:56 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

>
One has to wonder why the Democrats are so opposed to efforts to
ensure that the only votes cast are from people who are qualified to
vote ...

>

>
They aren't, dumbass. They're against the false trope that there was
widespread fraud. They're against the the lies that large numbers of
unqualified individuals cast votes. They're against the demonization and
assaults on the character of people who honestly worked their polling
places with integrity and certified election results to a result that
the magatards didn't like.
>
Elections in the the US are free and fair, with minimal cases of fraud.
The vast majority of ineligible votes cast are the result of
administrative errors and mistakes. The remainder are so small as to
constitute an insignificant blip in the statistical noise.
>
When you want to enact legislation based on lies, you're doing it wrong.

>
>
Re elections, etc.
>
Years ago when I lived in the U.S. I believe that there was a limit on
the amount of money that an organization or individual could give to
support a political party running in an election
Seemed logical... rich folks couldn't dominate the party.
>
Now I read that the president's ex buddy was the largest contributor -
millions of dollars.
>
My memory is fealty? Or they changed the rules?

>
Effectively, they changed the rules. The Supreme Court decided money is speech. See https://publicintegrity.org/ politics/the-citizens- united-decision-and-why-it- matters/? gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=10586056683
>

>
Under which unions and the like are treated exactly the same as other groups of associated individuals.
>

>
um...no.
Citizens united allowed corporations to contribute essentially in the same manner that labor unions do. CU didn't affect individual contributions (afair). REcall the famous Romney line after the decision (paraphrased for political expedience) 'corporations are people too'. That isn't really what he said but it's more accurate than 'I can see russia from my house'.
>

 In context Mr Romney was correct.  Fictitious persons share many obligations, rights and liabilities with humans; They pay taxes, can be sued civilly and criminally, they can contract, own and dispose of property, etc. There are differences; fictitious persons cannot vote.
 The Court's reasoning is that extending individual rights to associations (groups of individuals) is logical and appropriate in the area of political speech.
 The synopsis here is well crafted, the actual opinion is also clear (albeit lengthy) below it. Both address your concerns explicitly, notably by Mr Kennedy.
 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
 

I didn't express any concerns in the context of the CU vs FEC case. I expressed a opinion in the case of using lies about election fraud to craft legislation. CU vs FEC does not address any aspect of voting in federal elections except that they hoped their trashy movie would influence voters.
--
Add xx to reply