Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

[Elton]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

 

[2aguy]

B

What's the bigger sin?

A guy who used to live in Atlanta but now lives in Macon casting his vote in Atlanta.

A guy legally registered to vote wrongfully purged from the rolls, denying him his right.

Both are equally wrong. They both deny a lawful vote or erase a lawful vote, you doofus.

 

[Synthaholic]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Trump: "my judges".

 

[Elton]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Trump: "my judges".

The two are not the same though, are they. Unless you believe that laws only apply to certain people but if you are rich and powerful they don't apply to you. Kind of like all of these Democrat governors making everyone stay indoors while they enjoy the uncrowded restaurants. Kind of elitist if you ask me. Do you support that sort of behavior?

 

[Coyote]

[

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

From the artical, neither Abrams nor the group she founded, Democracy Forward, are litigants in this case, so why would her sister recuse herself?

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

You are seriously ignorant. The rules on reclusal are NOT designed for just political figures or public figures or just Republicans.. Lemme help you out here..

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.



-----------------------------------------------------

Stacey Abrams is THE REASON those 4000 NON RESIDENTS voted the last time and is determined that they vote THIS TIME.. She's running the steal in Georgia and bragging about it.. No way her sister doesn't know this..

It's pitchfork time.. If I lived in Georgia -- I'd be spending the week protesting outside that courthouse..

There is no evidence that these 4000 non-residents voted last election. Your making a lot of assumptions. Like Stacey Abrams had anything to do with these 4000 names being on the voters list in the first place. You assumed that because the issue is voting rights, Abrams is associated with the case.

Of course there is -- that's why now Raffensburger is opening the investigations into the ballot harvesting groups.. Like the one that Abrahms runs.. Here is one way her org boosted the registration rolls between Nov and now.. By telling college students (non residents) to CHANGE their residence to Georgia TEMPORARILY and DO IT by Dec 7th...

Georgia Secretary of State announces investigations into voter registration groups (fox5atlanta.com)

Operation New Voter Registration (ONVR) for GA Senate Runoff: 12/7 Deadline Instructions for Georgia Tech (Fulton County) Students 1.. Option 1: If You Have a Valid Georgia Driver’s License or Georgia ID Vote On-line: Visit Website Register to Vote or use this “shortened” link: bit.ly/3pEeua3 2.. Option 2: If You don’t have GA License or State ID: That’s OKAY !!! Residing in Georgia for at least the last 30 days is the requirement to be able to vote in the upcoming Jan. 5th Runoff Election. • You could have voted in another state for the recent Nov 3rd Presidential Election. • Your current residence can be another state. You are simply changing your state of residence now; and it can be switched back for future elections (your option). Step 1: Become Registered to Vote in Georgia Mail in “State of Georgia Application For Voter Registration” (see Attachment) to the Secretary of State, State of Georgia, PO Box 105325, Atlanta, GA 30348-9562. All you need: i.. Last four digits of your Social Security number – AND – ii.. Proof of residency- copy of: current photo ID (** Any University Photo ID located in GA accepted**), current utility bill, bank statement, government check, Paycheck, or other governmental document that shows your name and GEORGIA address. Include as many as you can easily provide. Application Form can be found using the same link in #1 above. Scroll down to “Fill Out & Submit Voter Registration Application”, then choose “Register by Mail” Step 2: Keep Checking GA Website to Determine When You’ve Been Approved Mvp.sos.ga.gov/MVP/mvp.do or we shortened: bit.ly/38JZrFy Step 3: Request Absentee Ballot (which can be sent anywhere) If you will not be back in Georgia for early or same day voting on Jan 5th simply request an Absentee Ballot be mailed to you anywhere in US.


"Let me be very clear again--voting in Georgia when you are not a resident of Georgia is a felony," said Raffensperger. "And encouraging college kids to commit felonies with no regard for what it might mean for them is despicable."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Amen.. They'll spend 1 to 3 years in the slammer and screw up their lives -- but what do the Dems care if they can steal another election.. It's just "collateral damage" to them...

 

[flacaltenn]

Abrams vote harvesting operation was BRAGGING about getting out of state voters access to mail ins.

Like any citizen is welcome to do. My brother lives in Germany but still votes in the Nevada election each year.

Does he have a residence in Nevada? In the Service? then it's legal.. Sad I have to tell you the diff..

 

[lantern2814]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

Her sister ran for Governor there, for the Dem Party. She was appointed by Obama, who is still very active in politics.

Are we to pretend her and her sister don't speak anymore?

So you are essentially saying because of the she should recuse herself from ruling on anything political?

No, not seeing a conflict here. Using your logic every Trump judge should be recused.

Of course being an uneducated partisan ass you see nothing wrong. Simple ethics dictates recusal in a case involving a family member. Any decision could easily be appealed and overturned by a higher court. It’s called common sense and doing the right thing. Something you and your leftist friends can’t comprehend.

Stacey Abrams is not involved in the case. She is not a witness and just a member of a party which has an interest in the case.

If your standard was consistent, you can have a judge who has a family member in either party...

Truth is the Judge Abrams ruled on precedence... Again there is very little proven voter fraud and a lot of proven voter suppression...

Why are the GOP afraid of the voting public?

Sorry idiot. Your own statement, “she is a member of a party that has an interest in the case”. Any REAL judge would recuse himself if there is ANY appearance of a conflict. Period. Not suppression when Dem officials ignore court orders to purge voter rolls. Why are you idiots afraid of rules and the law?

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

Her sister ran for Governor there, for the Dem Party. She was appointed by Obama, who is still very active in politics.

Are we to pretend her and her sister don't speak anymore?

So you are essentially saying because of the she should recuse herself from ruling on anything political?

No, not seeing a conflict here. Using your logic every Trump judge should be recused.

Of course being an uneducated partisan ass you see nothing wrong. Simple ethics dictates recusal in a case involving a family member. Any decision could easily be appealed and overturned by a higher court. It’s called common sense and doing the right thing. Something you and your leftist friends can’t comprehend.

Is her family member directly involved in this case?

Absofuckingl,utely her sister IS the front person for finding ALL the votes.. And counting them all LEGAL OR ILLEGAL and makes no bones about it.. Get a clue. It's public knowledge her harvesting operation SET UP THESE "out of state" voters to vote in the 1st place..

Georgia group founded by Stacey Abrams under investigation for seeking out-of-state, dead voters | Fox News

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has launched investigations into several groups, including one founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, for seeking to “aggressively” register “ineligible, out-of-state, or deceased voters” before the state’s Jan. 5 Senate runoff elections.

Raffensburger is the idiot who entered into the "dissent decree" with Abrahms just prior to Nov 3rd.. Seems like he's finally decided to "get right' with the interests of voters in Georgia..

Stacey Abrams has no role in the Democratic Party. Period. End of story.

Sure Sure Sure -- Just ran for GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA as a Democrat... And whatTF does that have to do with anything even if you were right? --- which your not obviously..

Because you posted that guideline for recusal, which mentions being related to Party officials.

Didn't you read it first?

And so what she ran for Governor. That doesn't lose her any rights.

That's NOT the part that APPLIES here.. I bolded the family relations part of it.. Could you not figure out what the APPLICABLE law was by me biggy sizing it for you???

 

[flacaltenn]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

 

[lantern2814]

like impounding ALL Dominion machines nationwide, for starters.

Oh, we already wiped them clean.

Then enjoy prison idiot. That’s destruction of evidence in an ongoing court case. You get dumber by the day.

 

[lantern2814]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

Her sister ran for Governor there, for the Dem Party. She was appointed by Obama, who is still very active in politics.

Are we to pretend her and her sister don't speak anymore?

So you are essentially saying because of the she should recuse herself from ruling on anything political?

No, not seeing a conflict here. Using your logic every Trump judge should be recused.

Of course being an uneducated partisan ass you see nothing wrong. Simple ethics dictates recusal in a case involving a family member. Any decision could easily be appealed and overturned by a higher court. It’s called common sense and doing the right thing. Something you and your leftist friends can’t comprehend.

You're going to have a rough 12 years.

No I’m not. But you will trying to defend your idiocy. Of course you’re brain dead already so there’s that.....

 

[Coyote]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

 

[progressive hunter]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

as usual youre just a one horse pony,,,

 

[Coyote]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

Why should she recuse herself? Abrams isn’t an elected official.

I heard something about this today and it is actually in the "canons of judicial ethics" if I remember correctly. Pretty much she is required to recuse herself because she is ruling in a case involving her sisters group. That's a pretty clear conflict, don't you think?

Post #80 in this thread on recusals. Fed law.. Similar at all levels of judgeships.. The bolded "family" part..

There is no family involvement. Stacey Abrams is not part of tbe case, neither is the group she founded.

 

[iceberg]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

 

[Coyote]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

 

[iceberg]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing its own set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

 

[HaShev]

Remember the saying "unintended consequences". This, of the Trump loss in particular Battleground States due to Bidens overwhelming popularity.

Per the article:

Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said she found no reason to recuse herself from the case.

Georgia judge, Stacey Abrams' sister, rules against voter purge before Senate runoffs

Two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

www.foxnews.com

A Georgia judge who is the sister of Democratic politician Stacey Abrams refused to recuse herself from a crucial election case, instead ruling against the purge of 4,000 voters from state rolls before Senate runoffs.



U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner's ruling comes after two counties voted to remove a tranche of voters' names from their rosters after two separate complaints alleged that publicly available voter registration data matched unverified change-of-address records by the U.S. Postal Service.

The complaints in Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, however, failed to prove that the voters had actually given up Georgia residences, according to reports by Politico.

Marc Elias, a Democratic Party attorney whose group Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit challenging the purges, called Gardner's decision a "blow to GOP voter suppression."

So she broke 2 laws then, and it's up to someone with brass round thingies to file charges on both grounds and have her removed from the bench and then file charges on Stacy if at any time she communicated about the voter case =obstruction of justice.

Blah blah blah - keep crying bitch.

Interesting choice of words about the law rather then refute the issues. Should we be shocked that the lawless ones would call the law it's "B" word?
-you've been lawyered!

 

[Coyote]

The left didn't push for mail in voting because it helped all equally. It was political for 1 sides benefit.

Of course. That is no surprise. And for the same reason the right tried to quash mail in voting and force in person voting, because it benefitted them. That is the way politics is and always has been.

If you want to change how we vote then let's blow it up and start all over, starting with voter I'd or you do not vote. We still good with making wholesale changes to our voting process? Disenfranchise? They can get an ID just as easily as I can...

Except we really have not made wholesale changes to our voting system. A number of states already had no-excuse absentee ballot systems and mail in voting, some for years, others had been in the process of transitioning to it. It was already a trend. The pandemic pushed it faster.

Same reasoning but for a different reason. Different reasons for doing it don't change wrong to right simply because you like one reason over the other.

Now the right is doing something by purging voters and suddenly changing the rules is wrong.

You really don’t see a difference here do you? In purging the rolls shortly before an election, you are possibly disenfranchising voters.

In the previous example, what voters are disenfranchised?

You allow last minute rule changes or you don't. You get selective then you damn well show your changes are ONLY FOR partisan benefit.

It isn’t about last minute rule changes, but about what effect those changes might have on voter rights and election integrity and whether they are legal and constitutional.

There is a big difference, for example, between trying to change a rule about when you can start processing mail in ballots (ie, start earlier because of an anticipated surge) and trying to change a rule to stop counting ballots (postmarked appropriately) by a certain date.

IF it is all about “last minute” rule changes...why did the Pennsylvania Republicans allow those rules for the primaries and on through the general election? That is not last minute. That also meant that the Republicans were willing to disenfranchise millions of voters voted according to tbe rules they were given.

You really don't see the difference here do you?

By opening our system up to fraud you are stealing votes from those who do it legally.

Again, you allow last minute changes, you allow, last minute changes. Crying foul the other side does it too?

That's why we are in this bag of shit.

Oh I do see the difference, you are now adding another element to the argument that wasn’t in it before. So let’s examine it. Some fraud occurs whether you vote in mail or at the polls, yet rarely has there been any sort of wide scale fraud that would alter the results. Most claims of fraud end up being inadvertent or human error. Despite all the screaming by opponents of mail in voting, this election ended up being one of the most secure elections we’ve had. No evidence of any wide spread fraud and that is per the DoJ (specifically directed to investigate claims of fraud) on down to tbe (mostly Republican) election officials and the courts.

Who was disenfranchised?

I'm not adding an element.

You allow side a to change things, you allow side b to change also. Rules we all follow.

Bitching someone is making changes you don't agree with is at this point, to me, shutting the barn door after you let the cows out.

You fail to understand I see things as pieces that fit a whole. You see them all as unrelated singular events that should be judged all individually.

I see a set of rules for all to play by
You see each situation needing itscown set of rules.

It makes that common ground a bitch to get to.

No. What makes common ground a bitch is you have no idea what I see. At all.

Your total focus is partisan tit for tat.

Rules change and rules need to change according to what is happening. But there is a process (different for each state) and there is a process for challenging it (the courts). A lot of what you are calling last minute rule changes were not exactly last minute (they went into effect for the primaries) and were made in attempt to have safe voting during a pandemic.

As long as the rule changes are done legally, maintain election integrity, and no one is disenfranchised as a result, I don’t have a problem with it.

I can only think of one case where the legality of who was allowed to make the change was challenged and that was PA. That was also case where the Republicans allowed it to go unchallenged through the primaries and did not challenge it until after the general election. The judge appropriately told them they had waited to long. They would have disenfranchised thousands of voters who voted in good faith.