• 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

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.

Your first post on this subject was correct.
I see no problem at all with Stacey Abrams's sister ruling on this case.

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

However, all of the rest of your posts on this subject contributed to the unavoidable.
 




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.


Doesn't matter, the Kraken believes it's already rigged so Loefler and Perdue win the runoff:

GOP has Georgia in the bag
 
And who gets to make that call? The judge. If it appears the judge has acted unethically, the state judicial commission (or whatever GA calls it) will call a hearing and determine if there has been an ethical violation. If there was, the judge will pay.

Is there any way you can tie your definition of ethics to djt?
Hilarious. I tell you not to try to do a whatabout and you do it anyway. No matter what ethical considerations are leveled towards the President, they are separate from the ethical considerations of the judge's recusal. If you disagree, please demonstrate how they are related, particularly in this case.
 
Hilarious. I tell you not to try to do a whatabout and you do it anyway. No matter what ethical considerations are leveled towards the President, they are separate from the ethical considerations of the judge's recusal. If you disagree, please demonstrate how they are related, particularly in this case.
I specifically answered your question. And you run from defending dear leader.
 
I specifically answered your question. And you run from defending dear leader.

Because one has nothing to do with the other. Why are liberals unable to discuss any malfeasance anywhere, any time without bringing Trump into it?
 




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.

Pure partisan politics by a corrupt democrat judge.
 
Wasn't us that brought dear leader here.

It is truly a contrary story about Germany's 1930s history.

Where German conservatives were able to enthusiastically throw their country, and thus their fates, into the hands of an autocratic demon, American democracy proved capable of countering today's American conservative awkwardness, confusion, and betrayal. I should make this the thesis of my next book.

On behalf of the more intelligent and properly patriotic, you are welcome future conservatives.
 
Last edited:
It is truly a contrary story about Germany's 1930s history.

Where German conservatives were able to enthusiastically throw their country, and thus their fates, into the hands of an autocratic demon, American democracy proved capable of countering today's American conservative awkwardness, confusion, and betrayal. I should make this the thesis of my next book.

On behalf of the more intelligent and properly patriotic, you are welcome future conservatives.

You should title it Political Bullshit from the left during the Trump Administration.
 
Nope. "Voter suppression" means something entirely different to the Democrats that it does to every patriotic American.

Since your definition of "patriotic Amercan" is Trumpism, it certainly does.
 




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 still don't have much confidence in Ossoff and Warnock winning. The stakes are massive and the election is run by Republicans.
 
I see no problem at all with Stacey Abrams's sister ruling on this case.

No bias or conflict of interest what-so-ever.
Why would anybody? Stacy's not running. It's not like she's running for governor while overseeing her own election as Secretary of State or anything of the sort.
 
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.
What optics?
 
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.


Not just a direct conflict, but the appearance of a conflict. Her sister's 501 organization is directly impacted by this decision.
What in any of this appears inapropriate?

*protip, it's gotta be something more than you personally not liking the judge's sister.
 
What do you think about this?? No conflict here? She should have recuse herself. Off to an appeals court!!

Stacey Abrams' federal-judge sister blocks Georgia voter eligibility challenge

Attorneys for the county election boards had asked Gardner to recuse herself in the case. The judge is the sister of Stacey Abrams, Georgia’s Democratic nominee for governor in 2018 and founder of the voting rights group Fair Fight.
Nope. Absolutely no conflict there at all.
 
The stated purpose of her 501 is to fight voter suppression. That was the plaintiff's argument - that the County Board's action was voter suppression.
So? What role did Stacey play in this lawsuit?
 
To patriotic American is means efforts to stop people from legally voting.

To Democrats it means any efforts to ensure only legal votes are counted

Let us know when you find Democrats voting illegally... because when we look it sure seems like we only find Republicans doing voter fraud. And even then it's just one off's.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom