North Carolina Election Law Battle Ends
A legal fight in North Carolina over the 2024 election held for a seat on the state's supreme court is now officially over. After a recent ruling from a federal judge which would have shut down the effort to overturn an election (which was verified by two separate recounts), the Republican who tried to do so is now waving the white flag of surrender, saying: "I will not appeal the court's decision." This brings to an end a very dangerous legal fight that could have had implications for democracy not only in North Carolina but (had it been appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court) elsewhere in America as well. In the end, a federal judge (appointed by Donald Trump, no less) upheld democracy in the face of a Republican attack on how elections are determined.
The winner of the election -- by only 734 votes, out of more than 5.5 million cast -- will now be certified. This will not change anything, since Justice Allison Riggs was running for re-election to the state's high court. The balance of power on the court was never in doubt, because Riggs is one of only two Democrats, while the Republicans hold five seats. But the principle was important nonetheless.
What was at stake was whether people who voted -- according to the law in place at the time they voted -- would have their votes counted or not. Will the votes be counted according to the rules in place at the time, or could those rules be changed after the fact so that certain votes could just be ignored or tossed out? That's a pretty fundamental concept, which is why the case was so important (even though, as mentioned, the partisan balance of power of the high court was never at stake here).
Riggs responded to the development in a statement: "After millions of dollars spent, more than 68,000 voters at risk of losing their votes, thousands of volunteers mobilized, hundreds of legal documents filed, and immeasurable damage done to our democracy, I’m glad the will of the voters was finally heard, six months and two days after Election Day."
The case began when the Republican candidate refused to accept his loss and decided to try moving the goalposts after the election:
Judge [Jefferson] Griffin began his fight by arguing that more than 65,000 ballots that were cast in the election should not be counted because of eligibility issues. He filed a protest with the State Board of Elections after the board twice certified Judge Riggs's victory. (The total number of ballots in question fluctuated over time as the case wound its way through the election board and the courts.)
Among the ballots Judge Griffin challenged were those cast by thousands of military and overseas voters, on the grounds that they had not submitted a photo ID or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots -- even though the voters were exempted from those requirements before the election.
Judge Griffin also challenged the ballots of nearly 300 voters who he said were "Never Residents," meaning they did not live in North Carolina but were registered to vote there. The "Never Residents" category typically includes North Carolinians who are working overseas and the children of military parents from North Carolina who turn 18 while their family is stationed abroad. North Carolina passed a law in 2011 allowing such people to vote in the state's elections.
Shockingly (or perhaps not), the Republicans on the state supreme court agreed (Justice Riggs recused herself from the case, of course). They ruled that the votes from the "Never Residents" should be thrown out, and that the eligibility of military and overseas voters would now need to be confirmed individually (on a very short timeline). So Riggs took the case to federal court.
Monday, a federal judge (again, one appointed by Trump) ruled in her favor, stating that the rules of the election could not be changed after the election had been held: "You establish the rules before the game. You don't change them after the game is done." Ballots could not be thrown out or subject to new verification rules because that would be a violation of the voters' due process rights (the right to have their legally-cast ballot counted). The judge tossed out the state courts' rulings and ordered state election officials to immediately certify the election for Riggs, unless Griffin appealed (in federal court). Today, Griffin announced he would not do so.
Riggs celebrated her victory: "It's been my honor to lead this fight -- even though it should never have happened -- and I'm in awe of the North Carolinians whose courage reminds us all that we can use our voices to hold accountable any politician who seeks to take power out of the hands of the people."
This is a basic constitutional principle, which is why it is so important. The Constitution explicitly bars ex post facto laws at both the national and state levels. Legislatures may not pass such laws -- if they do, they are unconstitutional. Courts can't move the goalposts after the fact either. The law at the time is what matters, period.
So even though the ideological makeup of the North Carolina high court will not change as a result of the Democrat winning re-election to her seat, this was a very important case nonetheless. If Griffin had appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if it had agreed with him (which is not out of the question, considering their own ideological makeup), it could have thrown future election results into chaos in other states as well. The fact that this now won't happen is a victory worth celebrating for American democracy writ large.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, looky there. First Thom Tillis shows a scintilla of a spine, and now Jefferson Griffin has finally decided to stop his unconstitutional and lawless crusade to throw out the ballots of 60,000+ voters of North Carolina.
It's almost like the corrupt, unethical, dishonest and disenfranchising GOP has realized there's an upcoming election and a lot of pissed off North Carolinians who can still vote.
Almost.
I agree with Kick [1]. This is encouraging, since almost any of us would have nodded in rueful acknowledgement had Judge Griffin actually decided to take it to the next level and appealed the federal court decision. That's just what Trump does, every time: appeal, appeal, appeal in hope of finally reaching a higher court corrupt enough or political enough to change the law, and/or finally forcing the opponent to drop out of the case because their legal fees have become overwhelming.
Maybe, just maybe, the Tillis and North Carolina stories this week are hopeful signs that the Republican administration and party have begun to hit some kind of resistance wall that actually matters.
Thanks, Kick.
John M from Ct.
2
This is encouraging, since almost any of us would have nodded in rueful acknowledgement had Judge Griffin actually decided to take it to the next level and appealed the federal court decision.
I know, right!? Who could forget it was Thom Tillis himself who had the opportunity to display some actual backbone by sticking to his guns and becoming the vote to sink the nomination of the obviously unqualified Fox Newsian anchor, Pete Hegseth? Tillis, however, chose the coward’s way out when threatened with being primaried in his bid for reelection to the Senate next year. So Tillis is apparently beginning to grow some spine or Trump is starting to lose some control... or both.
Trump isn't going to be on the ballot with Tillis et alia, and the GOP (at least in North Carolina) seems to finally be coming to the realization that voters aren't the least bit amused with all the GOP BS including Trump's ever-present grifting corruption, the unconstitutional global tariffs that threaten small businesses and the American consumer, the disenfranchisement of voters, and the overreach of big government preparing their cult followers to brace for hardship while they (again) attempt to blast holes into healthcare and the social safety net, while the GOP and their billionaire authoritarians laugh all the way to the bank.
How long before the Trump tariffs are declared unconstitutional in a court of law? Seems likely if the Courts follow the law. So the GOP can either continue to take inaction and turn a blind eye to this bullshit or grow a spine and do something about the big government overreach. The United States Constitution grants Congress (and only Congress) the power to impose, raise, or lower tariffs, which are taxes; in no way whatsoever does it give any such power to the President who has unilaterally ordered tariffs under false pretenses while the GOP cowers in compliance.
The GOP has also turned a blind eye while Trump is minting multiple meme coins with which he's grifting the American populace and selling access to foreigners via the Oval, and Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone not named Trump... and never has.
That's just what Trump does, every time: appeal, appeal, appeal in hope of finally reaching a higher court corrupt enough or political enough to change the law, and/or finally forcing the opponent to drop out of the case because their legal fees have become overwhelming.
Yes, sir, while Trump whines of victimhood yet uses the American judicial system for his own personal gain. Unfortunately for the Donald, his Project 2025 appointees and allies in his administration don't need Trump for their long-term plans. But I digress.
Maybe, just maybe, the Tillis and North Carolina stories this week are hopeful signs that the Republican administration and party have begun to hit some kind of resistance wall that actually matters.
The Trumptanic is meeting the iceberg, and spoiler alert: It doesn't look good for the passengers in third class unless (enough) members of Congress do something.
The claim that Jefferson Griffin’s challenge to the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election threatened democracy in ANY way is a complete and utter exaggeration that is totally negated by a logical and rational examination of the facts.
Judge Griffin’s complaints were made to enforce EXISTING state laws, not subvert voter will. Nor did Judge Griffin use any laws that have not been on the books for years..
It was a *2004* law that required driver’s license or Social Security numbers for registration, unmet by 60,000 voters due to the State Board’s outdated forms, a failure the state Supreme Court refused to penalize voters for on April 11, 2025.
The 5,500 overseas ballots lacked mandated photo IDs, and 267 “Never Residents” were ineligible non-residents, per a **2011** law. Judge Griffin’s actions sought ELECTION INTEGRITY, not voter disenfranchisement...
The federal judge’s ruling, upheld by the 4th Circuit’s April 22 stay, ensured DUE PROCESS by pausing ballot cures pending federal review, not dismantling democracy.
Ya'all remember DUE PROCESS, right?? It's what ya'all scream for when it's ideologically required to do so?? :D
Allison Riggs’ 734-vote lead after recounts held, but certification delays stem from LEGITIMATE legal disputes, not any form of ideologically based malice.
Critics like Justice Anita Earls overstate the case’s impact; the court’s 5-2 Republican majority was never at stake. Judge Griffin’s decision not to appeal reflects respect for judicial process, not capitulation.
This case underscores the need for pre-election fixes to election administration, not a narrative of democratic peril.
Democracy prevailed through lawful challenges, not despite them.
Let me repeat that for the cheap seats...
DEMOCRACY PREVAILED THROUGH LEGAL AND LAWFUL CHALLENGES, NOT DESPITE THEM
This is how our Democracy works, people...
Our Democracy is in peril when people, SOLEY for the sake of a political agenda, use lawfare to subvert our democracy...
Anyone know anything about that, eh?? :D
It's rather ironic, eh?? :D
NO WHERE does CW mention President Trump in his commentary, except twice where it is a VERY periphery presence.
Yet, commenters mention President Trump TWELVE TIMES!!!
You see, this is EXACTLY why ya'all's Democrat Party is still lost in the wilderness...
Even with a commentary that is NOT about President Trump WHATSOEVER....
Ya'all STILL spew the Trump/America hate...
Ya'all simply CAN'T stop hating on President Trump... Even if he has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand...
It's a FASCINATING study.. Although there isn't a single specific term in psychology for people who SO intensely hates a person and cannot stop thinking about or talking about them, the behavior can be described using several concepts.
These include fixation, obsession, resentment, and potentially even elements of narcissistic rage. The key is that the person's thoughts and emotions are consumed by the individual they dislike, leading to a VERY unhealthy focus.
There oughta be a name for it.. :D
But... since ya'all APPARENTLY want to talk about President Trump... I'll be HAPPY to oblige ya'all... :D
PRESIDENT Trump deserves to be commended for his awesome trade deal with the United Kingdom, a COMPLETELY COMPREHENSIVE trade triumph that cements a historic alliance!
PRESIDENT Trump's tariff strategy is paying off VERY well, forcing nations to the table and delivering results.
On April 2, 2025, PRESIDENT Trump unleashed sweeping tariffs (10% on U.K. imports and 25% on cars and steel) shaking global markets and compelling the U.K. to come to the table and negotiate.
The deal, announced May 8, 2025, slashes barriers, boosting the $11.9 billion U.S. trade surplus with the U.K., up 17.4% from 2023. This RESOUNDING victory for PRESIDENT Trump and America is the first of many and it follows Britain’s trade pact with India, proving PRESIDENT Trump's TARIFF pressure works!!
While Trump/America hating Democrats cried recession, PRESIDENT Trump paused tariffs for 90 days, giving allies like the U.K. a chance to strike deals.
The U.K.’s high tariffs (up to 25% on U.S. fish, 10% on vehicles) were tamed through PRESIDENT Trump's leverage not by any goodwill on the part of the UK government.
This deal, lauded by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, shows PRESIDENT Trump's AMERICA FIRST vision is reshaping global trade.
As PRESIDENT Trump eyes talks with China, his bold moves signal a “Golden Age” for America.
PRESIDENT Trump's tariff strategy is a masterstroke for U.S. prosperity
It's obvious to ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that PRESIDENT Trump is, indeed, the man who (co)wrote the book on THE ART OF THE DEAL!!! :D
Jefferson Griffin has finally decided to stop his unconstitutional and lawless crusade to throw out the ballots of 60,000+ voters of North Carolina.
Please point to ANY action that Judge Griffin took that was "unconstitutional"...
And, since ALL of Judge Griffin's actions were taken THRU THE LEGAL SYSTEM, the claim that his actions were "lawless" is laughable on it's face...
I'm just sayin'... :D
The federal judge’s ruling, upheld by the 4th Circuit’s April 22 stay, ensured DUE PROCESS by pausing ballot cures pending federal review, not dismantling democracy.
Ya'all remember DUE PROCESS, right?? It's what ya'all scream for when it's ideologically required to do so?? :D
Since this has been an ongoing subject here in Weigantia, I would like to explore it further...
When hysterical woke progressive Democrats scream about "DUE PROCESS" for illegal immigrant criminals, they are conflating "DUE PROCESS" for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT criminals with "DUE PROCESS" for American citizens..
They are unequivocally and absolutely NOT the same "due process"...
The idea that illegal immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia are entitled to the same due process as U.S. citizens is a complete fantasy and misconception rooted in misinterpretations of constitutional protections. This fantasy was created to obfuscate and muddle the issue..
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process for “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, but precedent limits its scope for illegal immigrants.
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) the Supreme Court held that due process for illegal immigrant criminals in deportation proceedings is utterly minimal. Requiring only a fair hearing before an immigration judge, not full judicial protections.
And Plyler v. Doe (1982) further clarified that illegal immigrant criminals have SOME rights, but these are quite context specific and not the full Constitutional rights that are available to American citizens.
Illegal immigrant criminals are NOT afforded the rights to extensive judicial review or prolonged detention challenges that a US Citizen is given.
Further, in Demore v. Kim (2003) the courts upheld mandatory detention without bond hearings for illegal immigrant criminals, emphasizing that National Security and Illegal Immigration Enforcement is the priority and the minimal rights afforded illegal immigrant criminals are way WAY down on the priority list..
As to the specific case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.... He was mistakenly deported in March 2025 despite a 2019 withholding order. But Garcia DID, in fact, receive the proper minimal "due process" afforded all illegal immigrant criminals which is, at most, an administrative hearing before an immigration judge. This satisfied the ONLY "due process" that illegal immigrants are authorized to have, per Zadvydas.
His case, under the Alien Enemies Act, aligns with Mathews v. Diaz (1976), which grants Congress broad authority over immigration and limits greatly any judicial oversight.
While the Supreme Court ordered efforts to facilitate Garcia’s return, this addresses an administrative error, not a constitutional mandate for expansive due process.
Illegal immigrant criminals receive PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS alone. NOT full "due process" that American citizens are afforded.
So, when hysterical woke progressive Democrats scream about "due process", the fact is that illegal immigrant criminals in the here and now have been afforded the MINIMAL "due process" they are allowed under the law..
"SO SAY WE ALL"
-BATTLESSTAR GALACTICA
:D
the fifth amendment due process clause says "any person," which means any person. not just citizens.
either we follow the constitution as it was written and are a nation ruled by laws, or we don't and are a nation ruled by criminals.
the fifth amendment due process clause says "any person," which means any person. not just citizens.
Yes, it does say "any person" is afforded "due process"...
No one is claiming otherwise..
But the COURTS have established time and time again that "due process" for Illegal Immigrant Criminals is NOT the same "due process" that is afforded American citizens..
So, while the Constitution guarantees DUE PROCESS for ANY PERSON the COURTS have stated that, unto Illegal Immigrant Criminals, Illegal Immigrant Due Process is given... And unto American citizens, a DIFFERENT due process is given..
The facts I have stated do not conflict at all with your counter argument..
In essence, we are both factually accurate..
I mean, if the COURTS are the end all be all and the final word as ya'all say they are when they go against PRESIDENT Trump....
Then they are the end all be all and final word when they rule that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS are afforded ONLY the "due process" that the courts say they are afforded...
"What's good for the goose is NOBODY'S business but the gander's!"
-Ralph Furley, THREE'S COMPANY
:D
And considering the massive mistakes ICE has been making, illegal Immigrants are not getting any form of due process at all...
Illegal Immigrant Criminals And what about the non-criminal illegal immigrant? You know, most of those sent to El Salvador? Or legal immigrants or students who protest and have their green card or other permission secretly revoked? What about their due process?
And considering the massive mistakes ICE has been making, illegal Immigrants are not getting any form of due process at all...
Not factually accurate.. The illegal immigrant criminals already HAD their 'due process' before ICE makes contact with them..
Nay, the REASON ICE is making contact with the illegal immigrant criminals is BECAUSE of their 'due process'...
And what about the non-criminal illegal immigrant? You know, most of those sent to El Salvador?
Never happened... Despite what CBS News claims...
Or legal immigrants or students who protest and have their green card or other permission secretly revoked?
Nothing secret about it.. The SecState decided that those people lied on the VISA applications and, as such, revoked their VISAs... AS IS HIS LEGAL RIGHT TO DO...
THAT is their 'due process'... Completely and 1000% transparent and legal..
You haven't a legitimate leg to stand on, Bash...
You haven't a legitimate leg to stand on, Bash...
But I still luv ya... :D
WOW... We have an AMERICAN Pope... :D
That's different...
Not factually accurate.. The illegal immigrant criminals already HAD their 'due process' before ICE makes contact with them..
Did they, now. Got anything to back that up?
Nay, the REASON ICE is making contact with the illegal immigrant criminals is BECAUSE of their 'due process'...
Or during their due process...
Never happened... Despite what CBS News claims...
And just about every other news source. Can you back your accusation up or just propagandizing?
Nothing secret about it.. The SecState decided that those people lied on the VISA applications and, as such, revoked their VISAs... AS IS HIS LEGAL RIGHT TO DO...
You mean from the administration that lies constantly? I think we need a bit more than a nudge nudge wink wink believe us...
THAT is their 'due process'... Completely and 1000% transparent and legal..
You have an odd definition of transparent...
You haven't a legitimate leg to stand on, Bash...
Says the guy who can't back up anything he says. Look in the mirror dude, look in the mirror...
Did they, now. Got anything to back that up?
Yes.. How else could ICE get their info if they weren't processed???
Or during their due process...
You are saying their "due process" is occurring in their homes and businesses where they were arrested??
Do you have anything to back THAT up??
And just about every other news source. Can you back your accusation up or just propagandizing?
Sure.. As soon as you give me some specific FACTS and not just some Democrat Water Carrier link..
You mean from the administration that lies constantly? I think we need a bit more than a nudge nudge wink wink believe us...
This is funny coming from the guy who supported the administration whose ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION was one big lie... :eyeroll:
Do you have ANY facts to support your claim that these scumbag terrorist supporters were illegally arrested??
Says the guy who can't back up anything he says.
When you give me specific things you refute, I'll be happy to provide specific FACTS to prove you wrong..
But just generally saying YOU'RE WRONG doesn't cut it anymore..
We'll start with an easy one..
Give me the NAME of a specific person who was illegally sent to CECOT...
Just one...
Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don't want America running the world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give us, also, control over the church.
-Robert Barron, bishop of the Diocese of Winona–Rochester in Minnesota
A premonition from Cardinal George?
The illegal immigrant criminals already HAD their 'due process' before ICE makes contact with them.
mostly false, since the vast majority of those imprisoned and deported (including many who committed no crimes whatsoever) had no judicial hearing about their present imprisonment and deportation. for the last 249 years or so, due process has meant that each time the government wants to take away a person's liberty, it is required to produce that person in front of a judge, specifically to determine if it's justified.
ICE has not done that. therefore, a great many of their detentions and deportations this year have been unconstitutional. the constitution means what it says; you don't get to make up additional rules about it as you go along.
Give me the NAME of a specific person who was illegally sent to CECOT...
Just one...
yo, pathetic propagandist see link in [12]...
and if your defense is just an ad hominem then back that up or give us a list of "accepted" news outlets...
mostly false, since the vast majority of those imprisoned and deported (including many who committed no crimes whatsoever) had no judicial hearing about their present imprisonment and deportation. for the last 249 years or so, due process has meant that each time the government wants to take away a person's liberty, it is required to produce that person in front of a judge, specifically to determine if it's justified.
Putting on my Bashi Hat.. Any facts to back that up??
The fact is all the illegal immigrant criminals have had ALL the due process that the COURTS have stated they deserve...
You want to push the fantasy that there is only ONE "due process"..
But there are MANY kinds of 'due process'..
And ALL of it is contextual...
ICE has not done that. therefore, a great many of their detentions and deportations this year have been unconstitutional. the constitution means what it says; you don't get to make up additional rules about it as you go along.
I know that you honestly believe that.. But you are factually wrong..
Let's simplify it...
Give me ONE example of an illegal immigrant criminal that was deported unconstitutionally...
Just one...
yo, pathetic propagandist see link in [12]...
Did I ask for a LINK??
No.. I asked for a NAME...
Can you provide me a NAME of someone who was sent to CECOT unconstitutionally??
YES or NO???
Are ICE officers not following the law, criminals? "Just following orders" is not an excuse when you know it's legally wrong...
Can you provide me a NAME of someone who was sent to CECOT unconstitutionally??
Reading too hard for you? Numerous names in article, take your pick. Or are you just dodging the fact you can't back your shit up?
Putting on my Bashi Hat.. Any facts to back that up??
If you were putting on your "Bashi Hat" you would be providing links to back your accusations up...
OK.. So Bashi CAN'T provide a SINGLE NAME of someone who was sent to CECOT unconstitutionally...
That renders Bashi's argument completely null and void..
OH... Bashi wants a LINK to back up my argument..
http://www.google.com
There... THERE is a link that has as much relevance to my argument as Bashi's link has to HIS claim...
'
:eyeroll:
All I am asking for is the NAME of someone who was unconstitutionally deported or sent to CECOT...
NO ONE can provide me a SINGLE name...
Therefore, my claim stands as validated by default...
Man, that's a lot of dancing to avoid reading an article...
Let's try this a different way...
Bashi, did YOU read the article???
FLORIDA LEADS THE WAY
FLORIDA COPS ARREST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN TAMPA
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6372519251112
I simply LOVE working for Florida Law Enforcement!!! :D
Michale
4
The claim that Jefferson Griffin’s challenge to the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election threatened democracy in ANY way is a complete and utter exaggeration that is totally negated by a logical and rational examination of the facts.
So you're saying it's logical and rational to request that 60,000+ people's votes be disqualified based on a losing candidate who no actual proof of the claims he's made asking for the votes to be invalidated and based on the candidate's interpretation of state law? *laughs*
Judge Griffin’s complaints were made to enforce EXISTING state laws, not subvert voter will.
When you request the Board of Elections invalidate 60,000+ votes based on your own personal interpretation of state law and no proof of your claims, that's the very definition of subverting the will of the voters.
Nor did Judge Griffin use any laws that have not been on the books for years..
It doesn't matter if the laws had been on the books for days, Judge Griffin's interpretation of those laws sought to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters of their votes.
It was a *2004* law that required driver’s license or Social Security numbers for registration, unmet by 60,000 voters due to the State Board’s outdated forms, a failure the state Supreme Court refused to penalize voters for on April 11, 2025.
Good call for the North Carolina Supreme Court to refuse Griffin's request to disenfranchise the voters he sought to invalidate.
The 5,500 overseas ballots lacked mandated photo IDs, and 267 “Never Residents” were ineligible non-residents, per a **2011** law.
Per Griffin's interpretation of that law. Interestingly, you omit the fact that Griffin was challenging only the overseas ballots/military voters from Buncombe, Durham, Forsyth, and Guilford counties... all heavily Democratic counties that his opposing candidate had won easily.
You also conveniently failed to mention that a North Carolina Board of Elections rule states that overseas voters are not required to submit photo ID with their ballots. In fact, when the bipartisan NC Board of Elections considered Griffin's complaint, they unanimously voted to dismiss that portion of his request to invalidate those voters.
Judge Griffin’s actions sought ELECTION INTEGRITY, not voter disenfranchisement...
Judge Griffin sought the disenfranchisement and invalidation of the votes of selected voters in certain counties known to be heavily Democratic-leaning counties... not remotely the definition of "election integrity."
The federal judge’s ruling, upheld by the 4th Circuit’s April 22 stay, ensured DUE PROCESS by pausing ballot cures pending federal review, not dismantling democracy.
Ya'all remember DUE PROCESS, right?? It's what ya'all scream for when it's ideologically required to do so?? :D
False equivalency and self-provided proof of your "understanding" of due process and the United States Constitution, more specifically the lack thereof.
Allison Riggs’ 734-vote lead after recounts held, but certification delays stem from LEGITIMATE legal disputes, not any form of ideologically based malice.
Your argument that a targeted attempt to disenfranchise particular voters from double-digit Democratic-leaning counties doesn't pass your definition of "not any form of ideologically based malice"... not by any stretch of the imagination.
Critics like Justice Anita Earls overstate the case’s impact; the court’s 5-2 Republican majority was never at stake. Judge Griffin’s decision not to appeal reflects respect for judicial process, not capitulation.
I guess that opinion remains to be seen; if a was a voter in North Carolina (or any state for that matter), I would not soon forget a GOP candidate trying to invalidate my vote in a targeted manner in order to win an election.
This case underscores the need for pre-election fixes to election administration, not a narrative of democratic peril.
This is a rather weak opinion/argument when you consider the actual facts of the case versus totally glossing over them.
Democracy prevailed through lawful challenges, not despite them.
Democracy prevailed in the federal courts because of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution; however, over in the North Carolina Supreme Court, they were quite content to screw over thousands of overseas/military voters in cherry-picked Democratic-leaning counties based purely on their partisan interpretation of law after the election and multiple recounts.
Let me repeat that for the cheap seats...
It seems to me you are occupying the "cheap seats" due to your complete dearth of facts regarding this issue.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/05/1920/1080/05.08.25.png?ve=1&tl=1
:D
According to Bashi's rules, NONE of #21 is factually accurate because there are no links...
Hay, talk to Bash!! :D
Aww right, this is my long week this week.. So I won't be around much over the next 72hrs... Ahhh the rough life of Law Enforcement, eh?? :D
I'll be checking in now and again to keep everyone honest... :D
But right now, I belong to my lovely wife.. :D
See ya'all...
Michale
5
It's rather ironic, eh?? :D
That depends entirely on what "it" is and what you believe to be the definition of "irony."
NO WHERE does CW mention President Trump in his commentary, except twice where it is a VERY periphery presence.
NOWHERE does CW mention President Trump... except twice. *laughs* No, that isn't "irony," but it is a word that begins with the letter "i," and I would wager Bashi in particular could provide it.
Yet, commenters mention President Trump TWELVE TIMES!!!
Some of us have the ability to connect dots from one commentary to another. You should try it; although, fair warning that it's infinitely more intellectually complicated that counting to 12.
It's a FASCINATING study..
Got a link to that "study," or are you just going to spew out some invented BS and ascribe it to the other commenters you obsess over? Rhetorical question.
Although there isn't a single specific term in psychology for people who SO intensely hates a person and cannot stop thinking about or talking about them, the behavior can be described using several concepts.
Please do explain Trump's contempt for Joe Biden and your repetitive slurs of Democratic candidates and former presidents and the constant disparagement of commenters who don't suck at the teat of Your Orange Worship, the 34-time convicted "scumbag criminal" (your term).
There oughta be a name for it.. :D
There is: Jerk.
Bashi, did YOU read the article???
Anything to not back your shit up? Trying to move the goal posts again? My point was most of those who were sent to El Salvador were not criminals. You then wanted "one name" that was illegally sent to CECOT even though the article in question has many, then it's "unconstitutionally deported", now what's it going to be? Face it dude, you are talking out your ass, and yes I read the article.
At least you conclusively proved one thing, you are incapable of not being a jerk...
. . . or a TDS chatbot troll.
Michale
7
Please point to ANY action that Judge Griffin took that was "unconstitutional"...
You want to play semantics with words? The relief that Griffin sought in having multiple ballots invalidated was unconstitutional in multiple instances... so sayeth a Trump-appointed judge. I point you to the Court's order citing the unconstitutionality of Griffin and the North Carolina Supreme Court's actions:
Educate yourself.
And, since ALL of Judge Griffin's actions were taken THRU THE LEGAL SYSTEM, the claim that his actions were "lawless" is laughable on it's face...
So you believe anything done "THRU THE LEGAL SYSTEM" means the actions aren't "lawless"? Wow! So you've never heard of perjury or someone using the legal system to illegally coerce or intimidate another defendant and/or witness, and you've never heard of filing a false police report "THRU THE LEGAL SYSTEM." That really is "laughable on its face."
Bashi,
and yes I read the article.
OK Great...
And did the article list a name of a person who was unconstitutionally sent to CECOT or unconstitutionally deported??
JL,
You have also been unable to provide me a SINGLE FACT or a SINGLE NAME that says someone was unconstitutionally deported and/or sent to CECOT..
Therefore I have no choice but to call BULLSHIT on ya'all's claim...
My facts stand as validated because you two are unable to provide ANY facts that support ya'all's claims..
"Don't try to match brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time."
-Ensign Sulu
And did the article list a name of a person who was unconstitutionally sent to CECOT or unconstitutionally deported??
What's up with the change to unconstitutionally deported? Can't handle the original question?
Nice dodge.
I was simply combining your comment and jl's comment.
Why don't you answer the question??
Did that article that you allegedly read give you a name of somebody who was unconstitutionally or illegally sent to CECOT.
Yes or No...
Nice dodge.
Says the guy who admits to moving the goal posts. I backed my shit up. Your turn...
My turn??
I am still waiting for you to finish YOUR turn first...
Did that article that you allegedly read give you a name of somebody who was unconstitutionally or illegally sent to CECOT.
Yes or No...
Yawn. I said there were mostly non-criminals in El Salvador with linked back up. You disagreed and said that was wrong with zero proof. Then tried to move the goal posts because evidently you can't back up your shit...
Back up your assertion and only then can we move on.