Abrams Declares Victory After Losing Voter
Suppression Lawsuit
American Spectator,
by
David Catron
Original Article
Posted By: Garnet,
10/3/2022 1:21:59 AM
After nearly four years and millions of wasted taxpayer funds, U.S District Judge Steve C. Jones ruled on Friday that Georgia’s election practices had violated neither the Constitution nor the Voting Rights Act (VRA) during the 2018 gubernatorial election. Shortly after losing that election to Republican Brian Kemp, Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams famously blamed her loss on voter suppression and filed a federal lawsuit against Georgia’s Secretary of State and Election Board via her advocacy group, Fair Fight Action, Inc. Judge Jones finally put the Peach State out of its misery by ruling in favor of Georgia on all counts.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
seamusm 10/3/2022 1:40:18 AM (No. 1293979)
A politician who uses the court in such a manner and LOSES should be liable for the costs he/she necessitated by the state. I think 'loser pays' should be the order of the day in damn near every trial both civil and criminal. We wouldn't need half the trials/courts/judges/lawyers we are currently saddled with. District attorneys might be more careful with our dollars knowing that a million dollar loss would likely ensure their loss in the next election and higher office elections to come.
40 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
SALady 10/3/2022 2:34:40 AM (No. 1293984)
It will be fun to hear her "victory" speech when she loses in November too!!!!!
23 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 10/3/2022 3:19:44 AM (No. 1293995)
Losing is victory.
Hating whitey is anti-racism.
Up is down.
Antifa is against fascism.
Yeah, all those things are lies and impossible.....and yet the insane left keeps telling us to believe them.
33 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
mifla 10/3/2022 5:20:52 AM (No. 1294006)
She is toast. I hope she has a concession speech this time around.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 10/3/2022 5:29:50 AM (No. 1294009)
Stacey Abrams wasted taxpayer money. This is not a surprise. It's Democrat street cred. Spend money for nothing. Will Stacey say she won this time when Kemp cleans her clock? No doubt, yes she will shout it from the highest rafters. The alphabets will be complicit. Again not a surprise. It's what Dems and Deep Staters do.
16 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
chumley 10/3/2022 6:08:58 AM (No. 1294022)
What is with these communist politicians? Even when caught red handed they deny, deny, deny. They dont even argue, they just contradict. Whatever the truth is they scream the opposite. Its childish behavior that they never seem to have outgrown.
20 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Highlander 10/3/2022 6:28:19 AM (No. 1294027)
Is there a seat at the table (make that two seats), for this gap-toothed walrus, at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party? Everything through the Looking Glass is reversed, including logic!
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Strike3 10/3/2022 7:35:34 AM (No. 1294064)
In Stacey's little mind but Brobdingnagian body, if the black candidate doesn't win, it's racism. It doesn't matter if she is racist herself or unqualified to handle a bucket and mop or generally unlikeable, she was discriminated against.
14 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
downnout 10/3/2022 7:39:57 AM (No. 1294068)
Many years ago, an attorney friend of mine opined that if caught having sex in the middle of Ghiardelli Square, deny, deny, deny.
A lot of people would believe you.
13 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Hazymac 10/3/2022 8:04:24 AM (No. 1294086)
Apparently, Ms. Abrams's unflagging M.O. is to declare victory after being defeated. It's what she does. It's all she has.
12 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
lakerman1 10/3/2022 8:35:35 AM (No. 1294108)
There is one area of voting eligibility where I may be sympathetic to black complaints. That area is the address of the voter.
If you watch Judge Judy, you might reach the same conclusion that I have reached - that young, single blacks in urban areas seem to move a lot, often sharing apartments and houses. And that they seem to move more often than whites.
If my perception is correct, then there will be a lot more cases where blacks have current addresses that do not match up with voter registrtion records.
I don't hve a solution for this problem, but point it out as an area of legitimate concern.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Old Army Vet 10/3/2022 8:39:35 AM (No. 1294115)
Just a hateful racist. IMHO.
7 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 10/3/2022 8:56:54 AM (No. 1294128)
A career built on participation trophies.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
varkdriver 10/3/2022 9:15:53 AM (No. 1294142)
Abrams reminds me of a black Hillary. She won't win, but she also won't go away.
14 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
padiva 10/3/2022 9:27:39 AM (No. 1294153)
The truth isn't as important as her opinions.
7 people like this.
#11 I have an idea.
You must live at a location for a full calendar year before you are eligible to vote from that location.
I’m sorry, but anyone who is too unstable to have a regular place to live is in no place to pick the leaders of the country.
11 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
lakerman1 10/3/2022 11:07:44 AM (No. 1294247)
2nd post apologies, but to address #16, I understand your logic, but such a requirement would not hold up under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It would have a disproportionate effect on blacks.
3 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
cor-vet 10/3/2022 12:22:40 PM (No. 1294303)
I'd like to see voting require a picture ID and a productive W-2 form. Are you who you say you are and do you have skin in the game?
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 10/3/2022 12:36:29 PM (No. 1294311)
Gap tooth Walrus? That's rich but very descriptive of Abrams.
5 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 10/3/2022 1:12:35 PM (No. 1294338)
For #16 & #17's comments, see Dunn v. Blumstein, a Supreme Court case that directly addressed residency requirements in voting situations, holding Tennessee's unconstitutional.
2 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Penny Spencer 10/3/2022 2:50:05 PM (No. 1294394)
The methodology suggested by #16 would disqualify anyone who had moved in the previous year. Obviously, not everyone who moves does so because they are feckless and unstable. People who have moved could conceivably vote from a previous address, but there are glaring problems with that option too.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Garnet"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)