January 6 hearings.

[Spearman]

So SCOTUS is taking testimony on whether Trump did insurrection enough to be kept off ballots.
As expected, as least by me, media commentary from the right is leaning toward you can't have different states doing different things. Basically going against the states rights arguments for RvW, voting rights, etc.

I hadn't realized that Kavanaugh had been involved with Gore v Bush case.

The real issue is what does Article II of the Constitution mean in the first instance. And it delegates authority directly to the state legislatures. And the textualists on the court, led by Justice (Antonin) Scalia, are paying close attention to that language.”

from a CNN interview in 2000
before 2020 election he wrote this when commenting on voter suppression:

“Under the U.S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections”

commentary from Washington Post at the time interpreted it as this:

legislatures play the most important role in setting the rules of an election, and that actions by other actors, such as federal and even state courts, are to be carefully watched

but it is ok when the SCOTUS do it.

 

[GreyCrow]

Saying the quiet part out loud



Jack Posobiec is a former Navy intelligence officer who specialized in the Communist Chinese Party and is now a Senior Editor for Human Events - a leading outlet of populist conservative thought. Jack was previously a correspondent for One America News Network.

I have concerns about the US Education system if he is classed as intelligent

 

[Blue1980]

Saying the quiet part out loud



Jack Posobiec is a former Navy intelligence officer who specialized in the Communist Chinese Party and is now a Senior Editor for Human Events - a leading outlet of populist conservative thought. Jack was previously a correspondent for One America News Network.

I have concerns about the US Education system if he is classed as intelligent

What do MAGA/Trump defenders say to that?

He’s “just joking”, they like it cos it triggers the libs?

I’m pretty sure many of these fascists would claim they’d love mass killing of minorities just for the “LMFAO melts of the left”.

 

[Baldur]

They're vulnerable idiots though. The same sorts of idiots that think horse dewormer cures COVID, or that 'Putin good'. They've been manipulated via social media algorithms and a deliberate program of brainwashing by Russia and non State actors (i.e. Grifters).

It's like hating on Qanon idiots. They're not smart people. They're vulnerable uneducated and usually socially isolated suckers, who have been manipulated by forces they dont actually understand.

We all have a crazy Aunt or Uncle that fits this mold, slathering s**t on Facebook that they've been told to believe.

I get what they did was wrong, but 20 years seems excessive.

If it happened in Australia, they'd get a year or two, max.

A violent assault in company causing death.

Assault, wounding and related offences

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 25A Assault causing death

www5.austlii.edu.au

As the attack was committed by a group in a joint criminal enterprise, all are guilty. I suspect the range in Australia would be from 2 years to 20, with only the ones who did not enter the building getting less than 10 years. 20 years being reserved for people who can be shown to have struck a blow that killed. 15 years being typical for those who carried weapons (s33b).

 

[Malifice]

A violent assault in company causing death.

Assault, wounding and related offences

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 25A Assault causing death

www5.austlii.edu.au

As the attack was committed by a group in a joint criminal enterprise, all are guilty. I suspect the range in Australia would be from 2 years to 20, with only the ones who did not enter the building getting less than 10 years. 20 years being reserved for people who can be shown to have struck a blow that killed. 15 years being typical for those who carried weapons (s33b).

No mate, they'd get sentences of a year or two max.

And why are you citing NSW law? Any 'storming of the capital' would happen in the ACT.

 

[Baldur]

No mate, they'd get sentences of a year or two max.

And why are you citing NSW law? Any 'storming of the capital' would happen in the ACT.

We are going to have to disagree. They killed police and threatened pollies, book thrown from great high.

I know the NSW criminal code to a degree, could not assed to spend the time to look up ACT laws that will be much the same in any event.

 

[Malifice]

We are going to have to disagree. They killed police and threatened pollies, book thrown from great high.

Im a lawyer. They would not get more than a few years at most, and sentences would likely be suspended for most parties that plead guilty, and showed genuine remorse.

I know the NSW criminal code to a degree

Good for you, but it's totally irrelevant to an alleged crime that happens in the ACT.

This is the one you want:

CRIMINAL CODE 2002

 

[Baldur]

Im a lawyer. They would not get more than a few years at most, and sentences would likely be suspended for most parties that plead guilty, and showed genuine remorse.



Good for you, but it's totally irrelevant to an alleged crime that happens in the ACT.

This is the one you want:

CRIMINAL CODE 2002

Did look at it, but it is clearly not a complete code. The main crime is not in that code. As the attack was on federal employees, land & pollies I suspect that Criminal Code Act 1995 may apply.

Federal Register of Legislation - Criminal Code Act 1995

www.legislation.gov.au

But I have not even checked if the 1995 act applies to this matter. Am not willing to spend the hours required to discover what section of what act applies and case histories re sentencing.

I know from experience that my knowledge of NSW law is enough to get me to the right ballpark and then I use a local agent for the details. Generally, the differences in state laws in Australia are at the detail level, the same action will be illegal, the defences will be the same and the sentences similar.

 

[Malifice]

Did look at it, but it is clearly not a complete code. The main crime is not in that code. As the attack was on federal employees, land & pollies I suspect that Criminal Code Act 1995 may apply.

Federal Register of Legislation - Criminal Code Act 1995

www.legislation.gov.au

The relevant law would be in the ACT code.

The Commonwealth might try and pursue Sedition or Treason under the Federal Code (using the incidental powers in the Constitution), but it would be open to a legal Challenge to the High Court.

If the charge was sedition against the Commonwealth, then It's likely the Feds would win if they brought charges.

The Feds can't legislate with respect to Criminal matters due to the operation of s51 of the Constitution. They still can (and have done) but those laws only apply to matters that are within (or affect) the Commonwealth and do not occur in the jurisdiction of the States or Territories or are incidental to an established legislative power the Commonwealth do have (Defence, Foreign affairs, Corporations etc).

I know from experience that my knowledge of NSW law is enough to get me to the right ballpark

Mate, NSW law has no bearing on ACT law, or WA law or Victorian law or Qld law. They're all entirely different legal jurisdictions.

Courts in the ACT would find decisions on similar matters in other States and Territories persuasive, but not binding.

Welcome to the Federal system.

 

[Spearman]

What do MAGA/Trump defenders say to that?

He’s “just joking”, they like it cos it triggers the libs?

I’m pretty sure many of these fascists would claim they’d love mass killing of minorities just for the “LMFAO melts of the left”.

I genuinely don't know if it is a trolling pisstake, or he really was serious. But when you start weighing up the totality of the right-wing, conservative, Christo-nationalist moves, then it should be quite clear what their overarching goal is.
You might say that the Roe overturn was a sideshow distraction to their real campaign against free and fair elections.

 

[Baldur]

The relevant law would be in the ACT code.

The Commonwealth might try and pursue Sedition or Treason under the Federal Code (using the incidental powers in the Constitution), but it would be open to a legal Challenge to the High Court.

If the charge was sedition against the Commonwealth, then It's likely the Feds would win if they brought charges.

The Feds can't legislate with respect to Criminal matters due to the operation of s51 of the Constitution. They still can (and have done) but those laws only apply to matters that are within (or affect) the Commonwealth and do not occur in the jurisdiction of the States or Territories or are incidental to an established legislative power the Commonwealth do have (Defence, Foreign affairs, Corporations etc).



Mate, NSW law has no bearing on ACT law, or WA law or Victorian law or Qld law. They're all entirely different legal jurisdictions.

Courts in the ACT would find decisions on similar matters in other States and Territories persuasive, but not binding.

Welcome to the Federal system.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 122.​

Government of territories.
The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

re "entirely different legal jurisdictions", so what, neither a completely correct statement, given that there is only one Australian common law and the High Court sits above them all, nor a valid response or rebuttal to my ballpark statement.

We are simply going to have disagree unless you can provide case law backing up claims of no more than two years for a violent assault in company that kills a police officer in Australia. I will not bother with any further replies unless said evidence is shown as we are getting nowhere and filling up the thread with unrelated rubbish.

 

[Malifice]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 122.​

Government of territories.
The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

re "entirely different legal jurisdictions", so what, neither a completely correct statement, given that there is only one Australian common law and the High Court sits above them all, nor a valid response or rebuttal to my ballpark statement.

And the ACT has had laws made for it, namely the Criminal Code. It's self-governing for Gods sake.

The Commonwealth code would only apply to Territories that are not self-governing, and to Australians abroad in limited circumstances, or in some limited cases domestically (and this might actually be one of those rare occasions, Sedition/ Treason against the Commonwealth in Chapter 5).

We are simply going to have disagree unless you can provide case law backing up claims of no more than two years for a violent assault in company that kills a police officer in Australia.

No-one killed a Police officer. And to charge someone with 'assault' you need all the elements made out for that individual.

If they were to be charged with anything here in Australia, I presume it would be s80.2(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth)

(3) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:

(a) the first person intentionally urges another person to interfere, by force or violence, with lawful processes for:

(i) an election of a member or members of a House of the Parliament; or

(ii) a referendum; and

(b) the first person does so intending that force or violence will occur.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

Chapter 5 - Sedition and Advocacy

That's only if the Commonwealth got involved, and didnt just leave it in the hands of the ACT to deal with under their Criminal code (to avoid any potential High Court appeals as to jurisdiction).

With a 7-year head sentence, a person with no priors, good character, genuine contrition, and good chances of rehabilitation would be unlucky to even see the inside of a cell after getting bail. Maybe a year or two at worst.

 

[Blue1980]

I genuinely don't know if it is a trolling pisstake, or he really was serious. But when you start weighing up the totality of the right-wing, conservative, Christo-nationalist moves, then it should be quite clear what their overarching goal is.
You might say that the Roe overturn was a sideshow distraction to their real campaign against free and fair elections.

They always claim they are “just joking” then do the exact thing they said they were joking about.

 

[Present Not Past]

Saying the quiet part out loud



Jack Posobiec is a former Navy intelligence officer who specialized in the Communist Chinese Party and is now a Senior Editor for Human Events - a leading outlet of populist conservative thought. Jack was previously a correspondent for One America News Network.

I have concerns about the US Education system if he is classed as intelligent

This guy is looney tunes.
Has stated that he would start a riot just so that he could cover it as a journalist.
That’s all you need to know about him.

 

[DickieKnee]

They always claim they are “just joking” then do the exact thing they said they were joking about.

They also have a habit of accusing the other side of the exact thing they are doing/planning to do.