Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for
 Trump deportees:
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:01:04 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <1029rt0$1daeo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <10204bo$2javi$4@dont-email.me> <1020f1h$2pd7f$3@dont-email.me>
 <1022rae$3jak1$2@dont-email.me> <10244ju$3s1io$4@dont-email.me>
 <10247qm$3svis$2@dont-email.me> <1024cm2$3u4uq$1@dont-email.me>
 <10256um$4dts$1@dont-email.me> <1025982$4pr1$3@dont-email.me>
 <1025ns1$bdcs$4@dont-email.me> <1026bcg$330rl$10@dont-email.me>
 <1026upd$jv4p$1@dont-email.me> <4r0e4kla3n7ppmqmklnbav1ng9eql9lc12@4ax.com>
 <1027gin$oc0i$2@dont-email.me> <1028soi$330rl$11@dont-email.me>
 <omvf4kdlt1j2lupt4osuv6i2d6oarp5cgl@4ax.com> <1029mt7$1bc5q$2@dont-email.me>
 <1029o9n$1ckfr$2@dont-email.me> <1029qo6$1d36u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:01:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="267ca030510a03a397eda13c6255ad8d";
	logging-data="1485272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rGOAvwM6TCHmPNHbWcCra"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RRUeJ6JdjcijouefRZxvCMjxLuY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1029qo6$1d36u$1@dont-email.me>

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/

-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971