• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judge rejects challenges to Georgia voters before Senate runoffs

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,703
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

12/29/20
A federal judge on Monday halted challenges to the eligibility of over 4,000 Georgia voters, ruling that they must be allowed to cast regular ballots in the U.S. Senate runoff election. U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner granted a restraining order that prevents election officials in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties from invalidating voters as early voting is underway. The ruling from Gardner, the sister of Democrat Stacey Abrams, comes in response to an attempt by the Texas-based organization True the Vote and the Georgia Republican Party to challenge more than 364,000 voters. Most county election boards across Georgia have rejected the challenges, but Muscogee and Ben Hill counties had required those voters to cast provisional ballots that would have been counted only after further review. Gardner ruled that the voter challenges violated federal laws protecting voting rights.

Systemic removals of voters are barred within 90 days of a federal election, according to the National Voter Registration Act. Voters can’t be removed until they’ve been notified and then don’t vote in two federal election cycles. Gardner ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ]Majority Forward, a nonprofit organization that supports voter registration efforts represented by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias. “Republicans tried to disenfranchise over 300,000 Georgia voters. This victory means 4,000 voters in two counties are protected,” Elias wrote on Twitter. “We continue to monitor how other Georgia counties respond to the suppression scheme. Where necessary, we will sue and we will win.” The largest remaining challenge to Georgia voter eligibility is pending in Forsyth County, where the elections board found probable cause to contest the residency of over 5,000 voters based on a request by state Rep. Marc Morris, a Republican from Cumming.


If Republicans put the energy they expend in suppressing/depressing the votes of Americans into actually helping Americans instead, they then might have one hell of a political party.

 
I see no problem at all with Stacey Abrams's sister ruling on this case.

No bias or conflict of interest what-so-ever.

Yeah, but it's still not as cool as having a brother that is the governor of the state that determines whether or not you get elected.
 
Yeah, but it's still not as cool as having a brother that is the governor of the state that determines whether or not you get elected.
Does he get to appoint judges to preside over individual cases?
 
What a stupid response to a question about bias and conflict of interest.
You don't think those affidavits were riddled with "bias and conflicts of interest"? Judges must be impartial under the law private citizens not so much.
 
You don't think those affidavits were riddled with "bias and conflicts of interest"? Judges must be impartial under the law private citizens not so much.
And I'm not supposed to question the impartiality of this particular judge?

Really?
 
And I'm not supposed to question the impartiality of this particular judge?

Really?
Other than a relationship, what evidence do you have that there is any bias or impartiality problems?
 
And I'm not supposed to question the impartiality of this particular judge? Really?

What do you mean "not supposed to"? You can post whatever you want here. You can even do it after sticking a chopstick up each nostril, if you like.

But if you want your opinion to have any weight, it needs to be based on something more concrete than a hackish assumption that the sister of a person who lost a race is liable to twist/violate the law, especially if its because democrat, that's why.

In fact, you should probably start by showing that there is something in fact wrong with the decision in the first place if you want to be taken seriously. "Reverse this decision because the judge should have recused herself even though I am not alleging that anything is legally wrong with the decision!" is not the strongest argument that comes to mind.
 
What do you mean "not supposed to"? You can post whatever you want here. You can even do it after sticking a chopstick up each nostril, if you like.

But if you want your opinion to have any weight, it needs to be based on something more concrete than a hackish assumption....


I think the hackishness here would be 100% on your part for reflexively defending the indefensible. The sister of Stacey Abrams has an obvious bias and conflict of interest. To deny it is to be, well... a total ****ing hack.
In fact, you should probably start by showing that there is something in fact wrong with the decision in the first place if you want to be taken seriously. "Reverse this decision because the judge should have recused herself even though I am not alleging that anything is legally wrong with the decision!" is not the strongest argument that comes to mind.
I never mentioned the decision or demanded it's reversal. I merely pointed out the obvious bias and conflict of interest of the person who made it.

You no read good or something?
 
I never mentioned the decision or demanded it's reversal. I merely pointed out the obvious bias and conflict of interest of the person who made it. You no read good or something?

Oh, you were just hackishly trolling? I figured, but gave you an undeserved chance.

Shame on me.
 
I think the hackishness here would be 100% on your part for reflexively defending the indefensible. The sister of Stacey Abrams has an obvious bias and conflict of interest. To deny it is to be, well... a total ****ing hack.

I never mentioned the decision or demanded it's reversal. I merely pointed out the obvious bias and conflict of interest of the person who made it.

You no read good or something?


Do you disagree with her findings?

Screen Shot 2020-12-29 at 10.14.11 AM.png

 
I see no problem at all with Stacey Abrams's sister ruling on this case.

No bias or conflict of interest what-so-ever.
So then what part of this didnt you understand?

Systemic removals of voters are barred within 90 days of a federal election, according to the National Voter Registration Act.

What bias did you note or do you presume when it's very clear?
 
Do you disagree with her findings?

View attachment 67310678

No no, he just made clear: he doesn't disagree, he doesn't think she should have recused herself, and because he doesn't think she should have recused herself he doesn't think the decision should be reversed. He doesn't know what he was really saying with "bias" or "conflict of interest". They just sounded vaguely nefarious, and thus good when aimed at a Democrat's sister.

tl;dr He just wanted to fart out some more Jack-brand hackery.

I think the hackishness here would be 100% on your part for reflexively defending the indefensible. The sister of Stacey Abrams has an obvious bias and conflict of interest. To deny it is to be, well... a total ****ing hack.

And now he's apparently going back and editing more into his post to make it look like he said more than he had.
 
I think the hackishness here would be 100% on your part for reflexively defending the indefensible. The sister of Stacey Abrams has an obvious bias and conflict of interest. To deny it is to be, well... a total ****ing hack.

Edited that in? How dishonest.

You haven't established any conflict of interest. You just ran your mouth. Jack running his mouth =/= Jack establishing anything. Find controlling precedent that being a failed candidate's sister (in election for state governor) means that a judge is irreparably conflicted and biased when ruling on case involving tactics of the party to which the sister does not belong in a federal race not concerning her relative.

That would be if you wanted to do something above and beyond your usual routine. Which, apparently, you don't.




Or..y'know...keep spewing hackishness, then calling everyone who doesn't automatically assume the democrat's sister is biased a "total ****ing hack."

You could do that. I guess. 🤷
 
Do you disagree with her findings?

View attachment 67310678
Not on the surface, no. I disagree with the judge not recusing herself. The optics are piss poor.

If the intent is to issue a fair ruling that is in accordance with the law, then surely a different judge could have done the same thing and all of this could have been avoided.
 
Edited that in? How dishonest.

You haven't established any conflict of interest. You just ran your mouth. Jack running his mouth =/= Jack establishing anything. Find controlling precedent that being a failed candidate's sister (in election for state governor) means that a judge is irreparably conflicted and biased when ruling on case involving tactics of the party to which the sister does not belong in a federal race not concerning her relative.

That would be if you wanted to do something above and beyond your usual routine. Which, apparently, you don't.




Or..y'know...keep spewing hackishness, then calling everyone who doesn't automatically assume the democrat's sister is biased a "total ****ing hack."

You could do that. I guess. 🤷
You're hung up on the word "hack" for some reason, Person.

Hmm...
 
Not on the surface, no. I disagree with the judge not recusing herself. The optics are piss poor.

If the intent is to issue a fair ruling that is in accordance with the law, then surely a different judge could have done the same thing and all of this could have been avoided.


Awwww..... Were feelings hurt in this process?
 
What is Stacey Abrams role in the law suit?

His only angle is "Democrat's sister, therefore bias, and anyone who doesn't agree is a 'total ****ing hack'".

That's it.

Abrams lost a state governor race as a Democrat. She has nothing to do with this suit. She has nothing to do with this race. This race is between other democrats and other republicans for federal senate seats, not state governor races. But according to Jack, that means that nobody related to Abrams can rule on any case involving the state governor race.

Again, because Democrat's sister --> irreparably biased. Disagree and he'll call you a name.





You're hung up on the word "hack" for some reason, Person. Hmm...

That's probably because "hackish" and "hackery" describe your posts in this thread. Don't worry, I don't expect you to see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom