NC Supreme Court race - Riggs ahead +734 | Griffin loses in Fed Court, Concedes

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 460
  • Views: 15K
  • Politics 
Icky Mettle said:
Some of the courts didn’t get it right.

And are you really comparing someone raising colorable legal claims in an effort to avoid being put to death with a judge raising highly suspect claims in an attempt to change the rules after the fact and have votes thrown out? (Also you seem to be misinformed about how the appellate process works.)
Click to expand...
Bull. The death row inmates raise highly questionable legal claims all the time. It's the courts job to go through them. Just like it was the courts job to work on these claims.

Although you're very likely right that I'm misinformed on how the appellate process works.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Looks like the judicial system worked.
Click to expand...
It did not work. There's a lot more to a judicial system than getting to the right result.

It should be an utter embarrassment to the state that it took a federal court to order certification of victory. The federal court even signaled to the NC courts, "I'm going to let you do this because I trust you to do it right," and the NC state courts responded with "nah, not even going to try"

IIRC, the NC Supreme Court didn't even address the constitutional issues that ultimately prevailed in federal court. DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS is a remarkably bad performance. If I'm wrong about the NC Sup Ct opinion, then I take those sentences back but obviously it did a terrible job with the constitutional issues because this wasn't even a close case.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Bull. The death row inmates raise highly questionable legal claims all the time. It's the courts job to go through them. Just like it was the courts job to work on these claims.

Although you're very likely right that I'm misinformed on how the appellate process works.
Click to expand...
Whether it’s a questionable claim or not, we’re talking about a very different situations where the ultimate outcome is literally life or death. But you are also generally incorrect about how it works, but I don’t feel like teaching a criminal law or appellate practice lesson right now.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yeah. Would you say a death row inmate dragged it out because they did 15 appeals over 10 years and got all the way to the supreme court? That's the system we set up.
Click to expand...
The process for death row inmates is considerably different. It's difficult by design. As in, several of those levels of appeals are designed to be nearly impossible for the defendant to prevail.

Why are you trying to lecture lawyers about the legal system. Calheel knows more about the court system than you would in 20 lifetimes. You remind me of this exchange:

Lisa: It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt
Homer/gt: What does that mean? Better say something.
 
BluHevn said:
The Pubs in the GA are what caused the issue. They are trying to do everything they can to change the rules after the fact to keep power, even if they lose. Just look at what they are doing with the governor's authority and taking away power from the election board.
Click to expand...
Yeah the only way this gets this "cleaned up" is for the Dems to take back control of the state legislature which will happen on the 12th of never
 
Icky Mettle said:
Whether it’s a questionable claim or not, we’re talking about a very different situations where the ultimate outcome is literally life or death. But you are also generally incorrect about how it works, but I don’t feel like teaching a criminal law or appellate practice lesson right now.
Click to expand...
While the stakes are certainly different, I do think he deserves the same access to the court system as any other citizen or legal resident. That's why I compared him to a death row inmate that uses the court system for numerous appeals. That's why I felt like when it was implied he didn't deserve those appeals, I questioned it with that example.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Okay. He got his days in court. I didn't know that's what you were worried about.

But just to let you know, day in court is a common expression. Even though most trials are not concluded in a single day, it's still common to say that a person got his day in court.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know “day in court” is a popular figure of speech. But it is a particularly ironic one in the context of this case.

Election law, especially post-election challenges, is an incredibly unique area of the law. These challenges are litigated in a very fast time frame - typically just weeks.

Out of the 100,000+ elections in the United States last November, this is the only one that is still not finalized. Why? Because Griffin decided to drag this thing out (enabled by some bad faith actors along the way)

Do the other 100,000+ election losers (some of whom lost much closer elections) just not understand about their “day” in court or was there something very unique about Griffin?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
While the stakes are certainly different, I do think he deserves the same access to the court system as any other citizen or legal resident. That's why I compared him to a death row inmate that uses the court system for numerous appeals. That's why I felt like when it was implied he didn't deserve those appeals, I questioned it with that example.
Click to expand...
And nobody denied Griffin access to the court system. We are criticizing the following:

1. A candidate for Supreme Court Justice should be able to recognize and follow the law. Literally Griffin's performance in this litigation should disqualify him for any seat on the bench. If he doesn't understand why his claims were insanely wrong and bonkers, then he's too stupid for a seat; if he realized they were weak and did it anyway, then he's too opportunistic and malleable to be a Justice.

2. An electoral candidate who seeks to undermine public confidence in elections with bullshit theories should be sharply rebuked

3. Both Griffin and the NC state courts tried to change the rules of an election after it occurred, and in the process ignored multiple foundational constitutional principles. They did so in the most dishonest way possible, which is to target Dems for selective disenfranchisement.

4. Neither Griffin nor the NC appeals court evinced any concern whatsoever for the rights of the citizens who were disenfranchised. None. The NC Supreme Court did a little better, but still had no trouble at all tossing valid votes to achieve their desired outcome. And of course, the reason they are desiring that outcome is that they plan more and more judicial activism.
 
Calheel said:
Yes, I know “day in court” is a popular figure of speech. But it is a particularly ironic one in the context of this case.

Election law, especially post-election challenges, is an incredibly unique area of the law. These challenges are litigated in a very fast time frame - typically just weeks.

Out of the 100,000+ elections in the United States last November, this is the only one that is still not finalized. Why? Because Griffin decided to drag this thing out (enabled by some bad faith actors along the way)

Do the other 100,000+ election losers (some of whom lost much closer elections) just not understand about their “day” in court or was there something very unique about Griffin?
Click to expand...
I can't speak to the other ~100,000 losers in political contests. It's actually a large number of people and there are a large number of unique circumstances so it's hard for me to comment. I don't see why they wouldn't be entitled to their day in court. I assume they just chose not to challenge the election day outcome in court for a variety of different reasons.

Out of curiosity, since you know that day in court is a popular figure of speech and what it means, why do you keep quoting "day"? It's no big deal but I'm just wondering.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I assume they just chose not to challenge the election day outcome in court for a variety of different reasons.
Click to expand...
Most of those reasons are a) election not close; or b) candidate has at least a modicum of honor and the capability of feeling shame.

Part of the reason you don't see this as the catastrophe that it has been is perhaps that you don't understand the pathetic weakness of Griffin's arguments and the NC courts' opinions. You should read Myers opinion and then report back your findings. Oh who am I kidding -- you don't read. But if there are other posters out there with doubts on this point, maybe you should try to read it.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I can't speak to the other ~100,000 losers in political contests. It's actually a large number of people and there are a large number of unique circumstances so it's hard for me to comment. I don't see why they wouldn't be entitled to their day in court. I assume they just chose not to challenge the election day outcome in court for a variety of different reasons.

Out of curiosity, since you know that day in court is a popular figure of speech and what it means, why do you keep quoting "day"? It's no big deal but I'm just wondering.
Click to expand...
Of course they challenged the results - at least many of them did. But by and large they colored within the lines and when they lost in a month - like almost all do - they gracefully conceded and allowed our democracy to thrive.

Griffin, in a singularly unique example of bad faith sore loserism, challenged this election for seven months - long past the point of a typical election loser. In fact, long past the point of every election loser.

So that is why I honed in on the word “day”. This wasn’t a case of someone losing in court and walking away. This was a bad example of someone corrupting the system for impure reasons.
 
Calheel said:
Of course they challenged the results - at least many of them did. But by and large they colored within the lines and when they lost in a month - like almost all do - they gracefully conceded and allowed our democracy to thrive.

Griffin, in a singularly unique example of bad faith sore loserism, challenged this election for seven months - long past the point of a typical election loser. In fact, long past the point of every election loser.

So that is why I honed in on the word “day”. This wasn’t a case of someone losing in court and walking away. This was a bad example of someone corrupting the system for impure reasons.
Click to expand...
My understanding is he lost in court and walked away after going through a lengthy, but entirely legal, judicial process.

I know some people support taking away those rights when they don't like someone, including many people in the Trump administration, but I'm very much against it.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
My understanding is he lost in court and walked away after going through a lengthy, but entirely legal, judicial process.

I know some people support taking away those rights when they don't like someone, including many people in the Trump administration, but I'm very much against it.
Click to expand...
this has been explained to you repeatedly already but while the absurd and unprecedented process that griffin undertook was technically legal, many/most of his arguments were wildly unfair and completely at odds with long established precedent and the partisan hack rep majority on the NCSC embarrassingly tried to help facilitate his attempts to steal an election.

while truth and justice prevailed in the end, it took entirely too long to get there and the bad faith acting on the part of various republicans scattered around our state's judiciary was very extreme and disturbing. they do not care about the rules, they want to steal power and then hold onto it by force.

this is why people are taking issue with your "rah rah, the system works" narrative. it very nearly did not work. it took entirely too long to work.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
My understanding is he lost in court and walked away after going through a lengthy, but entirely legal, judicial process.

I know some people support taking away those rights when they don't like someone, including many people in the Trump administration, but I'm very much against it.
Click to expand...
Like he was trying to take away legitimate voters rights after the fact potentially leaving them with no remedy or recourse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top