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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 458
  • Views: 31K
  • Politics 
Buckle up buttercups

We are about to have a REAL stolen election

www.wral.com

NC Supreme Court could now decide who should win the election for a seat on the court

After incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs appeared to defeat Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Griffin has been seeking to throw out 60,000 ballots. His case could now be heard by the same court he's trying to join.
www.wral.com www.wral.com
 
uncgriff said:
Buckle up buttercups

We are about to have a REAL stolen election

www.wral.com

NC Supreme Court could now decide who should win the election for a seat on the court

After incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs appeared to defeat Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Griffin has been seeking to throw out 60,000 ballots. His case could now be heard by the same court he's trying to join.
www.wral.com www.wral.com
Click to expand...
Looks like Myers managed to fuck up the remand decision, super. The article suggests the BOE can appeal to the Fourth Circuit, but as we were discussing a couple of days ago, I’m not sure that’s right.

ETA — In short, Myers found that the federal court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the case and removal was therefore proper, but he chose to abstain under Burford and Louisiana Power. In other words, he punted a case that he was constitutionally charged with deciding, and he punted it back to the same GOP-dominated court the litigants are trying to join. Say what you will, but this strikes me as a massive profile in cowardice.
 
Last edited:
Icky Mettle said:
While this judge was appointed by Trump, I think people in the legal community who practice before him respect him. Prior to becoming judge, he was a UNC law professor. One of my good friends had him as a professor and thought very highly of him. He was actually surprised he ended up being a Trump appointee.
Click to expand...
Oh well.
 
Pubs have suffered no electoral consequences for their stolen SCOTUS seat so might as well start thieving state Supreme Court seats as well.

Also, Griffin looks like a cartoon villian.
 
lawtig02 said:
Looks like Myers managed to fuck up the remand decision, super. The article suggests the BOE can appeal to the Fourth Circuit, but as we were discussing a couple of days ago, I’m not sure that’s right.

ETA — In short, Myers found that the federal court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the case and removal was therefore proper, but he chose to abstain under Burford and Louisiana Power. In other words, he punted a case that he was constitutionally charged with deciding, and he punted it back to the same GOP-dominated court the litigants are trying to join. Say what you will, but this strikes me as a massive profile in cowardice.
Click to expand...
1. Can you link to Myers' opinion or ruling?
2. Abstention can be appealed. So the BOE will do that. They should ask the 4th to impose an administrative stay, and that should take us past the deadline. Even without the administrative stay, I can't imagine that the 4th would dispense with such a complex case without full briefing.
3. It is cowardly but it's more than that. It's clearly and obviously wrong, in my view, admittedly before reading the opinion.
4. I know it's always tempting and usually wrong to impute 3-D chess motives to GOPers, but the abstention is a bit odd. Did Griffin even ask for that? And abstention, unlike remand, can be appealed. So maybe Myers is trying to run out the clock without actually having to rule against Griffin. I mean, probably not.
 
Icky Mettle said:
While this judge was appointed by Trump, I think people in the legal community who practice before him respect him. Prior to becoming judge, he was a UNC law professor. One of my good friends had him as a professor and thought very highly of him. He was actually surprised he ended up being a Trump appointee.
Click to expand...
I know you're just reporting what you've heard, so I'm not holding you to account. But I read that Myers was the fucking asshole who wrote that the 1872 Amnesty Law wiped out Section 3 of the 14th. That contention was so utterly daft that the author cannot be taken seriously as a jurist, and attorney, or really a person.

Also former Sentelle clerk, so almost by definition unreasonable.
 
superrific said:
1. Can you link to Myers' opinion or ruling?
2. Abstention can be appealed. So the BOE will do that. They should ask the 4th to impose an administrative stay, and that should take us past the deadline. Even without the administrative stay, I can't imagine that the 4th would dispense with such a complex case without full briefing.
3. It is cowardly but it's more than that. It's clearly and obviously wrong, in my view, admittedly before reading the opinion.
4. I know it's always tempting and usually wrong to impute 3-D chess motives to GOPers, but the abstention is a bit odd. Did Griffin even ask for that? And abstention, unlike remand, can be appealed. So maybe Myers is trying to run out the clock without actually having to rule against Griffin. I mean, probably not.
Click to expand...
Here you go.

 
Myers was reversed by the 4th in an opinion with this as the first paragrpah:

In 1868—three years after the end of “the late wicked Rebellion,” the Constitution was amended to disqualify from future federal or state office certain public officials “who . . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States “or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Four years later, Congress . . . enact[ed] legislation lifting the “political disabilities imposed by” Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment “from all persons whomsoever” with the exception of certain high-ranking federal officers who had joined the Confederacy. The issue currently before us is whether that same 1872 legislation also prospectively lifted the constitutional disqualification for all future rebels or insurrectionists, no matter their conduct. To ask such a question is nearly to answer it. Consistent with the statutory text and context, we hold that the 1872 Amnesty Act removed the Fourteenth Amendment’s eligibility bar only for those whose constitutionally wrongful acts occurred before its enactment

Getting reversed on an issue characterized as so obvious that asking the question is tantamount to answering it should be humiliating.
 
lawtig02 said:
Here you go.

Click to expand...
1. Yes, Griffin did ask for abstention so forget my point #4 above.
2. The judge keeps saying that the federal interest is "tenuous." Whatever. The federal interest is the strongest because Griffin's request is an assault on the federal constitution, and specifically the 14th amendment. It actually doesn't matter if, as Myers asserts, state courts are "competent" to adjudicate federal constitutional questions. State courts are competent to adjudicate all federal laws; the existence of federal removal and 1443 in particular means that competence is not the standard. There's a reason why 1443 exists, and it's because the federal government does not trust the states to guarantee protections under the 14th.

By far the most important interests in this case are those of the soon-to-be disenfranchised voters. Riggs and Griffin don't matter. And since the state court will not protect those interests, it falls to the federal courts under 1443 and abstention is inappropriate.

3. Abstention is inappropriate for another basic reason: abstention is supposed to be rare, but on his analysis, it would be common in election disputes. I expect this will be a basis for reversing this ruling. The entire point of 1443 is to give a federal forum to people who aren't getting a fair shake from state courts. Well, in what cases do the state courts not give plaintiffs a fair shake? Usually ones with the qualities that Myers identifies as reasons to abstain: complex statutory scheme, novel questions, etc.

I have never paid any attention to abstention since Fed Courts class (which I hated but also aced), but it seems to me that abstention should be categorically unavailable when 1443 is the basis for jurisdiction. 1443 is a judgment by Congress that these cases should be heard in federal court. Period. End of story. There is no room for deference to the state when the basis for jurisdiction is that the federal forum is necessary to protect rights.
 
superrific said:
I know you're just reporting what you've heard, so I'm not holding you to account. But I read that Myers was the fucking asshole who wrote that the 1872 Amnesty Law wiped out Section 3 of the 14th. That contention was so utterly daft that the author cannot be taken seriously as a jurist, and attorney, or really a person.

Also former Sentelle clerk, so almost by definition unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Hey, I was almost a former Sentelle clerk. They aren't all assholes.
 
Calheel said:
Hey, I was almost a former Sentelle clerk. They aren't all assholes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but almost is the key word there. You were one of the ones who got away. . .

No, seriously, when I was clerking, I never had trouble with Sentelle's chambers. As a judge, I found him loathsome because of his rudeness and hostility toward Yankee lawyers. The book on him was never, ever ask him to repeat one of his marble-mouthed mumblings, because if you did, he would pile on the Appalachia even thicker. I often had trouble understanding what he was saying, and while I didn't grow up in WNC I spent many formative years in the state. If I couldn't understand him, the average NYC or Philly or Chi-town lawyer couldn't, and as far as I ever knew, there was no regulation permitting judges to discriminate against attorneys based on their geographical residence.

But his clerks were fine. I didn't have much to do with them, but my co-clerks didn't complain either.

By far the worst chamber to deal with was Henderson. Just a clusterfuck over there from top to bottom. Clerks who weren't good. Clerks who didn't like their boss because sometimes her bullshit would get so thick that nobody even knew what she was saying. I was working on an en banc decision where Henderson was dissenting. At one point, I called the clerk to let him know that she had inserted an extra "not" and that the sentence was saying the opposite of what seemed to be intended. The clerk was like, "yeah, I pointed that out to the judge, but she said the not was correct." I asked, "well, then, I don't understand the point," and the reply was, "me neither." The guy had drafted the opinion originally.

The second worst chamber was Garland, though for a different reason: he was so thorough with his research and writing that he was always late. Most opinions in a term would be filed by the end of May, meaning that the clerks could take June off or go summer with a law firm or do whatever. But there were always a few that lingered until August. We had three in chambers (fortunately none were mine), and they all involved Garland. When I used to work out with him at the courthouse gym, it was usually around 7. After the workout, I went home. He went back upstairs an awful lot of the time. Or at least that's what he told me. I see no reason why he would lie.
 


Welp. Away we go. Depending on how broadly they rule, could it impact other elections at this point? Presumably the rest will be certified by then so no problemo, just hold the seat for a Republican on the Supreme Court and move on is where we are heading?
 
nycfan said:


Welp. Away we go. Depending on how broadly they rule, could it impact other elections at this point? Presumably the rest will be certified by then so no problemo, just hold the seat for a Republican on the Supreme Court and move on is where we are heading?
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm watching one of those win probability trackers on ESPN. It was 50-50 or so on election day, and gradually moved in Riggs's favor as more votes came in. She should be at 100% right now. But the fecklessness of the Trump-appointed federal judge and the unabashed corruption of SCONC have been a spectacular last-second Hail Mary for Jefferson, and he's now at something like 90% to win. Just unbelievable election stealing happening here.

1736278208000.png
 
nycfan said:


Welp. Away we go. Depending on how broadly they rule, could it impact other elections at this point? Presumably the rest will be certified by then so no problemo, just hold the seat for a Republican on the Supreme Court and move on is where we are heading?
Click to expand...

I’m sure the NC Supreme Court majority will reach a fair, sensible, and unbiased decision.
 
nycfan said:


Welp. Away we go. Depending on how broadly they rule, could it impact other elections at this point? Presumably the rest will be certified by then so no problemo, just hold the seat for a Republican on the Supreme Court and move on is where we are heading?
Click to expand...

The BOE can and I assume will appeal the remand order because the trial court abused its discretion to abstain. I don't even know if abstention is reviewed under that standard (it's a question of law so it should be reviewed de novo, but who knows), but the BOE should still win.

I think the NC Supreme Court knows this, which is why they moved to block the certification. Without this order, the BOE will appeal and then certify. There is a question as to whether the NC Supreme Court has this authority, though, if the case is not actually before it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top