Judge rejects challenges to Georgia voters before Senate runoffs

[yankintx]

Judge stops True the Vote challenges to voters in 2 Georgia counties

A federal judge ruled Monday that election officials in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties can't cancel the registrations of over 4,000 voters whose eligibility was challenged by members of the Georgia Republican Party.

www.ajc.com

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.

Judge blocks voter purge in 2 Georgia counties

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, sister of Stacey Abrams, rejected a call for her to recuse.

www.politico.com

Election Derangement Syndrome causes loss of IQ points.

 

[OpportunityCost]

someone that had nothing to do with the law suit

"
“Abrams’ involvement in the Fair Fight Litigation ... is sufficient to satisfy the standard for mandatory judicial recusal,” the board’s attorneys wrote. “Abrams has a clear interest in the outcome of this proceeding and other similarly situated litigation in Georgia due to her voting advocacy through projects such as Fair Fight and the New Georgia Project.”

 

[OpportunityCost]

I see, so any judge who has a family member who is a Democrat must recuse? Is that the standard? How about if the judge has a family member who is a Georgia Republican? Must they recuse because the RNC and Georgia Republican party are an integral part of the outcome?

She has a pending case on almost the exact same issue and will probably use whatever her sister decides as precedent. She has a decided interest in the case.

 

[LouC]

Judge rolls back order on Georgia runoff voter challenges

The judge, the sister of Stacey Abrams, drew fierce attacks from Trump allies for declining to recuse.

www.politico.com

Thanks.

 

[GolfingChef]

"
“Abrams’ involvement in the Fair Fight Litigation ... is sufficient to satisfy the standard for mandatory judicial recusal,” the board’s attorneys wrote. “Abrams has a clear interest in the outcome of this proceeding and other similarly situated litigation in Georgia due to her voting advocacy through projects such as Fair Fight and the New Georgia Project.”

well, if the opposing attorney said so, then it just has to be true and accurate.

Seems if they are right, they have good grounds for an appeal to a higher ground

 

[Rawley]

Thanks.

De nada. Stacy's sister when off the rails with her original order and quickly realized she was going to get slammed on appeal

 

[OpportunityCost]

well, if the opposing attorney said so, then it just has to be true and accurate.

Seems if they are right, they have good grounds for an appeal to a higher ground

You asked, now you are crying about the answer. Quit crying or quit asking.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You mean like Jeb Bush and Florida vote counting for 44?

What case did Jeb Bush preside over, again? I forgot.

 

[GolfingChef]

You asked, now you are crying about the answer. Quit crying or quit asking.

Not crying nor whining, just laughing my ass off at your "well they said so, that means it has to be true" post.

You should learn the difference between tears of laughter and crying.

 

[MSgt]

Point of fact: this guy must really like to hear himself talk. No one cares about your wall of text response to a single sentence.

You and the rest of your one-liner club appear to miss the entire point of a debate site.

 

[JasperL]

She has a pending case on almost the exact same issue and will probably use whatever her sister decides as precedent. She has a decided interest in the case.

She can't use the decision in one district court as "precedent" for another. The district courts don't work like that. They are only bound by decisions of higher courts, in their district.

So, no, WRONG! Try again, this time with some understanding of how precedent works in the federal court system.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You and the rest of your one-liner club appear to miss the entire point of a debate site.

Its not a ranting site and that is all you appear to do. Usually crying about the exact same things over and over.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Not crying nor whining, just laughing my ass off at your "well they said so, that means it has to be true" post.

You should learn the difference between tears of laughter and crying.

Hmm, most recusals are based in the same language and I didn't assert true or false, that's going to be up to an appeals judge possibly.

So, sure seems like crying because here you are making excuses instead of talking about the answer.

 

[MSgt]

Its not a ranting site and that is all you appear to do. Usually crying about the exact same things over and over.

It's a debate site, for which I supply ample evidence and summation.

You, however, merely supply drive-by unsubstantiated opinions with the idea that you contribute. Debate takes more than a single sentence and a "nu-uh" to dismiss.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Hmm, most recusals are based in the same language and I didn't assert true or false, that's going to be up to an appeals judge possibly.

So, sure seems like crying because here you are making excuses instead of talking about the answer.

Every thread and post by every Trump supporter since PA was called for Biden has been nothing but a cryfest.

Never in my life have I seen such sniveling, whining, and crying by adults.

Absolutely pathetic.

 

[GolfingChef]

Hmm, most recusals are based in the same language and I didn't assert true or false, that's going to be up to an appeals judge possibly.

let us know how that appeal goes.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Every thread and post by every Trump supporter since PA was called for Biden has been nothing but a cryfest.

Never in my life have I seen such sniveling, whining, and crying by adults.

Absolutely pathetic.

Yeah, you have. Check a mirror. Because you do nothing but cry and whine and snivel constantly.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's a debate site, for which I supply ample evidence and summation.

You, however, merely supply drive-by unsubstantiated opinions with the idea that you contribute. Debate takes more than a single sentence and a "nu-uh" to dismiss.

You fit a certain type of poster, long winded, posts paragraphs when a sentence will do and utterly and absolutely convinced of the righteousness of your position. If and when you start posting decently without the ranting orange man bad bullshit and actually address topics, you will get civilized, thoughtful commentary.

My replies to you are rooted in the quality of your posts. Your posts suck and are rant fests, not debate.

 

[GolfingChef]

Because you do nothing but cry and whine and snivel constantly.

 

[OpportunityCost]

View attachment 67311291

Prediction: Trump will have residence at Mar a lago with no legal opposition to it.

 

[GolfingChef]

Prediction: Trump will have residence at Mar a lago with no legal opposition to it.

There will be legal opposition to it, whether it wins or not is up in the air.

 

[MSgt]

You fit a certain type of poster, long winded, posts paragraphs when a sentence will do and utterly and absolutely convinced of the righteousness of your position.

I don't know about a certain type, but most of what you say is accurate enough. You could have tossed arrogant into the mix.

But I am "righteous," because I back up what I say with clear documented evidence and summation to explain it. Ever write a book? It takes more than "a sentence" to make an argument. But "a sentence" is what too many of you conservatives have been reduced to, because you lack the ability to place your nonsensical opinions on solid ground. Tomato paste!

If and when you start posting decently without the ranting orange man bad bullshit and actually address topics, you will get civilized, thoughtful commentary.

My replies to you are rooted in the quality of your posts. Your posts suck and are rant fests, not debate.

Your posts to anybody will be as they always have been... Opinionated drive-byes, void of investment, and any actual argument to back that opinion up. For example, you have supported a clear and documented traitor for four years. I can back that up by providing clear enough evidence of exactly what Trump is. Your reply would be "nu-uh" and "your posts are too long." It's you who lack the debate.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't know about a certain type, but most of what you say is accurate enough. You could have tossed arrogant into the mix.

But I am "righteous," because I back up what I say with clear documented evidence and summation to explain it. Ever write a book? It takes more than "a sentence" to make an argument. But "a sentence" is what too many of you conservatives have been reduced to, because you lack the ability to place your nonsensical opinions on solid ground. Tomato paste!



Your posts to anybody will be as they always have been... Opinionated drive-byes, void of investment, and any actual argument to back that opinion up. For example, you have supported a clear and documented traitor for four years. I can back that up by providing clear enough evidence of exactly what Trump is. Your reply would be "nu-uh" and "your posts are too long." It's you who lack the debate.

Traitor is your opinion, your evidence will be rather clearly biased and unproven or he would have already been removed from office. So, thanks for proving my point.

 

[poweRob]

She has a pending case on almost the exact same issue and will probably use whatever her sister decides as precedent. She has a decided interest in the case.

So Stacy Abrams has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So Stacy Abrams has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all. Thanks for the clarification.

She absolutely does as she has an interest in the outcome, it will affect her personally and how she handles her get out the vote efforts and court challenges in Georgia.