Jump to content

Lawsuit seeks to void Georgia congressional election results


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

http://www.kwqc.com/content/news/Lawsuit-seeks-to-void-Georgia-congressional-election-results-432520853.html

 

Quote

 

ATLANTA (AP) - A new lawsuit claims Georgia's electronic touchscreen voting system is so riddled with problems that the results of the most expensive House race in U.S. history should be tossed out and a new election held.

The lawsuit by the Colorado-based Coalition for Good Governance and six Georgia voters was filed Monday in Fulton County Superior Court. It seeks to overturn the results of the June 20 runoff election between Republican Karen Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th Congressional District. Handel was declared the winner.

The lawsuit claims Georgia's touchscreen voting system has severe security problems, lacks verifiable paper ballots and cannot be legally used for elections.

A spokeswoman for Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Good Grief.....:-\

 

To the contrary.our Judiciary is our greatest threat to democracy.......un-elected politically partisan judges usurping the rights of the elected representatives of the people.  Can't believe any supporter of democracy could consider this trend as beneficial to our country's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

“Libraries are the last bastion of democracy."

I woudnt disagree with that at all.  

But the judiciary operates as a the rear guard when democracy is under assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Good Grief.....:-\

 

To the contrary.our Judiciary is our greatest threat to democracy.......un-elected politically partisan judges usurping the rights of the elected representatives of the people.  Can't believe any supporter of democracy could consider this trend as beneficial to our country's future.

Anti constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I woudnt disagree with that at all.  

But the judiciary operates as a the rear guard when democracy is under assault.

Yeah, un-elected, unaccountable, individuals are the last bastion of democracy...good lord...do you even think before you post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Yeah, un-elected, unaccountable, individuals are the last bastion of democracy...good lord...do you even think before you post?

Do you ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you ever?

Sounds like a response from Pee Wee Herman.... you trying to take up for Homey's witless fortune cookie phrases now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Sounds like a response from Pee Wee Herman.... you trying to take up for Homey's witless fortune cookie phrases now?

No, sincere question after years of muddling through your "thoughts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, japantiger said:

Yeah, un-elected, unaccountable, individuals are the last bastion of democracy...good lord...do you even think before you post?

Do I really need to explain the three branches of government to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AU64 said:

Good Grief.....:-\

 

To the contrary.our Judiciary is our greatest threat to democracy.......un-elected politically partisan judges usurping the rights of the elected representatives of the people.  Can't believe any supporter of democracy could consider this trend as beneficial to our country's future.

Judges aren't supposed to make decisions based on getting re-elected or what's popular.  Even though I don't agree with the decisions certain courts or judges make, I still see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in not making judges run for election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do I really need to explain the three branches of government to you?

For some reason that made me laugh.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't really mean the last bastion of democracy....you mean the last bastion for the progressive movement.  You've lost 1000 legislative seats nationally and now the white house....your love for judges only goes as far as you think they can turn this tide unilaterally ....youve lost the ability to get your way legislatively and now thru XOs; and now the only way to get there is thru judicial fiat that you hope won't be overturned by a higher court...and oops...looks like you're lost ground on that front too.  How about this....come up with an idea that people will actually vote for....but stop spending my children's future away,  pretending the gov't is the solution to everything, especially deeply individual concerns like healthcare and stop tying to tell me there's 3 genders....when you ground your ideas in reality, you wont need judges to bail your sorry ass ideas out...eventually you are going to run into judges with actual fealty to the constitution....

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Judges aren't supposed to make decisions based on getting re-elected or what's popular.  Even though I don't agree with the decisions certain courts or judges make, I still see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in not making judges run for election.

I agree for that point of not running ...but in fact most judges run for election at the state level even to the Supreme Court level in my state.   But nonetheless,  many in the judiciary have decided that they are fount of all wisdom and since they are basically not accountable to the electorate and instead have to survive partisan litmus tests to get their lifetime appointments. ...and thereafter they are free to apply their own interpretation to laws or the intent of the lawmakers.....like those recent cases where several judges ingnored "settled law" and decided that DT had bad motives so a law that had been in existence for about 50 years could be ignored ....and further ...that three judges in California could apply their moral values to the entire United States.  

Fortunately, SCOTUS has turned that around.....and for showed why electing DT mattered.....no matter what an ass  he might be on his twitter account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AU64 said:

I agree for that point of not running ...but in fact most judges run for election at the state level even to the Supreme Court level in my state.  

Which is also a terrible idea and needs to go away.

 

Just now, AU64 said:

But nonetheless,  many in the judiciary have decided that they are fount of all wisdom and since they are basically not accountable to the electorate and instead have to survive partisan litmus tests to get their lifetime appointments. ...and thereafter they are free to apply their own interpretation to laws or the intent of the lawmakers.....like those recent cases where several judges ingnored "settled law" and decided that DT had bad motives so a law that had been in existence for about 50 years could be ignored ....and further ...that three judges in California could apply their moral values to the entire United States.  

Fortunately, SCOTUS has turned that around.....and for showed why electing DT mattered.....no matter what an ass  he might be on his twitter account.

The judiciary is made up of human beings and is far from perfect.  It has the same faults as any other branch in a democracy or republic.  But as they say, democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

As far as Trump the Infantile's election being worth it, so far the Gorsuch confirmation is about the only thing he's done of real weight that has been good in my book.  The rest is at best a mixed bag and at worst has confirmed every reason I had for not voting for a man of such low character and capricious temperament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TT...JMO but electing judges is about the only way maintain balance in the judiciary . Otherwise as we are witnessing now, every important appointed judgeship has become a partisan decision and not based on the willingness of the candidate to uphold the Constitution. Questions to the last candidate about whether he would look out for "little man" are examples of the approach that I find to be destructive. Bad as DT is in many ways, his election was important to the future of the U.S. solely based on his SCOTUS pick...and the one to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

TT...JMO but electing judges is about the only way maintain balance in the judiciary . Otherwise as we are witnessing now, every important appointed judgeship has become a partisan decision and not based on the willingness of the candidate to uphold the Constitution. Questions to the last candidate about whether he would look out for "little man" are examples of the approach that I find to be destructive. Bad as DT is in many ways, his election was important to the future of the U.S. solely based on his SCOTUS pick...and the one to come.

Well stated. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

TT...JMO but electing judges is about the only way maintain balance in the judiciary . Otherwise as we are witnessing now, every important appointed judgeship has become a partisan decision and not based on the willingness of the candidate to uphold the Constitution. Questions to the last candidate about whether he would look out for "little man" are examples of the approach that I find to be destructive. Bad as DT is in many ways, his election was important to the future of the U.S. solely based on his SCOTUS pick...and the one to come.

Not one thing about elected judges improves on that one bit. All you do is add to the issues judgments made with an eye toward reelection prospects rather than sound interpretation on law. You take an imperfect situation and make it worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think many, if any on the Left ever played or were involved in sports. They never learned "be humble in victory and gracious in defeat". Instead they whine, file lawsuits and blame their opponent for their own failings. Of course, this suits me because during the time they should be "self scouting" and getting themselves better for the next election they are sitting in a corner whining and sucking their thumbs over their last defeat. That's the best way I know to lose the next one too, so keep the crybaby stuff going strong until the next elections, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not one thing about elected judges improves on that one bit. All you do is add to the issues judgments made with an eye toward reelection prospects rather than sound interpretation on law. You take an imperfect situation and make it worse. 

Not so...what we have now is the possibility/ potential that judges make their decisions on important cases with the knowledge that someone like Schumer or whoever will be looking at the decision some time in the future and using that single opinion as a reason not to approve that judge for a federal position.  The last SCOTUS appointment had made hundreds of decisions over his career yet in the hearings he was raked over the coals over maybe two or three of them that did not got the way some Senator would have liked.   

Of course the down side of electing judges ...and I face it in every election here...is that I have no real idea about what the judge's judicial philosophy is because they barely campaign so that's not perfect either....but at least I have the option of looking into their past. 

The appointment of activist judges threatens our democratic system with it's checks and balances.   I am firmly convinced of that after watching judges out west ignore settled law regarding recent immigration issues based on their personal feelings and not what the law has to say. 

It's not going back ...no doubt of that...but appointing more judges rather than fewer of them is not a solution.  We are stuck with what we have and have to make the best of it. JMO but the prospect of Gorsuch and a couple other folks being appointed to SCOTUS is probably what got DT elected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Not so...what we have now is the possibility/ potential that judges make their decisions on important cases with the knowledge that someone like Schumer or whoever will be looking at the decision some time in the future and using that single opinion as a reason not to approve that judge for a federal position.  The last SCOTUS appointment had made hundreds of decisions over his career yet in the hearings he was raked over the coals over maybe two or three of them that did not got the way some Senator would have liked.   

Of course the down side of electing judges ...and I face it in every election here...is that I have no real idea about what the judge's judicial philosophy is because they barely campaign so that's not perfect either....but at least I have the option of looking into their past. 

The chances of any of the federal judges being nominated (much less confirmed) to a 9-member SCOTUS when the average president in an 8 year term *might* appoint one or two justices is infinitesimally small.  So are the chances of a state court judge (over 30,000 of them) making it to a federal judgeship.   The chances of having to run for re-election would be a 100% unless you choose to drop out of your own free will.  They simply are not comparable.

The Founding Fathers understood this.  They created a government of checks and balances, with different mechanisms for reaching certain positions, different criteria, different terms of office, and different ways of representation to mitigate the excesses of all the others.  We have two elected legislative bodies and an elected executive position.  The courts were meant to balance that out by not having their decisions be made based on popular opinion and re-election prospects.  It was a wise way to construct things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...