- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 88,714
- Reaction score
- 65,726
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
What exactly appears to be inappropriate here?
What exactly appears to be inappropriate here?Any appearance of impropriety or favoritism is to be avoided so as to prevent accusations of bias and favoritism. Its called ethics.
Don't even try to play the orange man bad card, it doesn't alleviate ethical decisions on the part of judges.
You should title it Political Bullshit from the left during the Trump Administration.
That is a direct conflict. If you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict, I really can't help you.So? What role did Stacey play in this lawsuit?
Fine, question her bias. The ruling was, according to the article, based on legal prohibitions of voter purges within 90 days of an election without giving those voters notice and an opportunity to respond. If you think her ruling didn't interpret the LAW correctly, which is what matters, then make your case for that. If not, then "bias" because she's a sister of no one running for office in GA isn't all that relevant.And I'm not supposed to question the impartiality of this particular judge?
Really?
You make my point:
- The "political" choice was to either call into question an American President's inheritance of foreign assistance while his National Security Advisor lied about secret meetings...or shrug.
- The "political" choice was to either criticize an American President who defended Russia against American institutions and ideologies...or support that betrayal.
- The "political" choice was to either chastise an American President who asked a foreign government to interfere in an American election...or support that treason.
- The "political" choice was to either deny an American President's National Security Advisor's call for the military to freeze the Constitution...or support that sedition.
- The "political" choice was to either accept that there still remains no true evidence of election fraud...or encourage Trump's blatant assault on American democracy.
You see, there was and is nothing "left" about this. It was certainly never Bullshit. And none of this should have ever been political. The funny thing is that you people still think you can preach to the left from a righteous position of nationalism and constitutionalism. You all helped Trump sink that boat.
Trump is a traitor. Each time he got away with escaping responsibility, he was more emboldened to worsen his treachery. He went from accepting foreign aid in 2016, to actually asking for it in 2019. And Trump's shrugging followers proved to be just as bad with their consistent support for his betrayal, treason, sedition, and routine assault on American democratic institutions.
But to avoid what you all supported and what you all did to yourselves, you choose to drop Trump's appointed conservative judges into your fantasized "deep state," to continue playing the perpetual victim of the left. You simply deny and call the documented history Bullshit. You choose to pretend that Trump's position as one of the very worst in American history is simply a matter of partisan politics. Same routine. "Fake news"..."deep state"..."QAnon"... "Democrat election fraud"... anything to avoid the truth and to keep denying it.
What exactly appears to be inappropriate here?
Was the judges sister a party to the lawsuit?Who is the judge's sister?
Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?Fine, question her bias. The ruling was, according to the article, based on legal prohibitions of voter purges within 90 days of an election without giving those voters notice and an opportunity to respond. If you think her ruling didn't interpret the LAW correctly, which is what matters, then make your case for that. If not, then "bias" because she's a sister of no one running for office in GA isn't all that relevant.
And then maybe tell us when a judge must recuse. Trump's lawsuits were heard in front of a slew of judges he appointed and presumably were loyal to the actual plaintiff, Trump, or who'd benefit, Trump, and yet...they didn't recuse.
You just don't like Stacy ergo her sister should recuse despite Stacy having nothing to do with this case. That is your logic.That is a direct conflict. If you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict, I really can't help you.
Who cares? Does the judge's sister have anything at all to do with this case?Who is the judge's sister?
You mean from the orange right-wing messiah that said this?Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?
Plaintiff argued voter suppression. Abrams' 501c stated mission is to combat voter suppression. Judge rules for plaintiff that this is voter suppression, Abrams' 501c benefits. Judge rules that this is not voter suppression, Abrams' 501c is hurt.You just don't like Stacy ergo her sister should recuse despite Stacy having nothing to do with this case. That is your logic.
Now if Stacy's sister were to go on a hunting trip with the defendant days before the case was heard, you might have a point about there being some kind of conflict. But there is none here.
Did Stacy have anything at all to do with this case? No? Then sit down.Plaintiff argued voter suppression. Abrams' 501c stated mission is to combat voter suppression. Judge rules for plaintiff that this is voter suppression, Abrams' 501c benefits. Judge rules that this is not voter suppression, Abrams' 501c is hurt.
Not rocket science.
So you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict.Did Stacy have anything at all to do with this case? No? Then sit down.
Got his number?
And as they are running around screaming "fraud!" it is virtually a certainty that they are actually engaging in fraud.I still don't have much confidence in Ossoff and Warnock winning. The stakes are massive and the election is run by Republicans.
Show me where the judge here "pledged her loyalty" to her sister, who is not running for office, and who you're ignorantly accusing of bias. When was the judge here asked to pledge her loyalty to her sister or her sister's causes?Can you show us an example of a single judge appointed by Trump or any other President, who pledged their loyalty to the appointing POTUS? Can you show a single instance where a judge was ever asked to?
LOL arguing from absolute ignorance. You're dismissed.Who cares? Does the judge's sister have anything at all to do with this case?
Considering her involvement in the election, get out the vote methods, ballot harvesting, interest in the election itself, the appearance of impropriety is there.Was the judges sister a party to the lawsuit?
I’ll type it slower, maybe that will help. Was the sister a party to this lawsuit?Considering her involvement in the election, get out the vote methods, ballot harvesting, interest in the election itself, the appearance of impropriety is there.
I’ll type it slower, maybe that will help. Was the sister a party to this lawsuit?
I accept your concession. Thank you for acknowledging there was no reason the judge should have recused herself.Oh, good, you're one of those. Do everyone a favor and type it so slow that you never post here again.
I accept your concession. Thank you for acknowledging there was no reason the judge should have recused herself.
Stacy has nothing to do with this case. The only "appearance" issue is you fabricating some connection that doesn't exist.So you don't understand the concept of appearance of conflict.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?