Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Finally an appeal I can get behind   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Law, United States, United States Congress, Judge, group of voters, appeal of the Georgia secretary of state, Supreme Court of the United States, Court  
•       •       •

4714 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2022 at 6:15 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-16 3:27:27 PM  
Circus of "special" clowns
 
2022-05-16 3:35:49 PM  
Mono Sodium Glutamate ain't goin nowhere until she's voted out or gets busted for grift.
 
2022-05-16 4:17:44 PM  
The five voters...

:-/
 
2022-05-16 5:41:04 PM  
For such an anti-Gay party, they sure make it difficult to keep a straight face when listening to them!
 
2022-05-16 6:12:41 PM  
Lock her up!!!
 
2022-05-16 6:25:02 PM  
Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims. Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

Cool, so it's up to a bunch of inbred sister-farkers with a 7th grade education over whether or not an insurrectionist should be barred from seeking elected office. Just the way the founding fathers intended.
 
2022-05-16 6:25:48 PM  
youngtigers.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-16 6:29:30 PM  
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that the burden of establishing one's eligibility to run for office is on the candidate, the appeal filed Monday says. Beaudrot erred by shifting that burden of proof to the challengers and thwarting the voters' attempts to get evidence from Greene, the appeal argues, adding that Raffensperger's decision was thus "made upon unlawful procedures and affected by other errors of law."

Well, now, all that not remembering in the hearing was her not proving she's eligible, as she's required to do according to the Georgia SCOTUS, apparently. That's pretty interesting.
 
2022-05-16 6:30:52 PM  
The original soft on crime judge had no control over his courtroom. It was a circus.
 
2022-05-16 6:40:24 PM  
She's not appealing.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that.
 
2022-05-16 6:41:08 PM  
Sporkfoot.
 
2022-05-16 6:43:08 PM  
y.yarn.coView Full Size
 
2022-05-16 6:45:03 PM  
Ain't nothin' gonna happen, but I am thrilled they are trying.
 
2022-05-16 6:45:07 PM  
FTFA:
The five voters from Greene's district in March filed a complaint with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

lol, good luck with that.

Also FTFA:
Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims. Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

Which is literally false, being that there's a disqualification on this basis in the 14th amendment - which is law. It's the duty of the appropriate agents of the state to make that determination if the question comes up. The voters don't have legal authority to do that. Voters don't execute or enforce the law. They vote, that's it. Whether or not she's disqualified under the law is very literally NOT a question for the citizenry, it's a question that those whose duty it is to enact and enforce the law need to be able to answer.

Now he could say he doesn't believe that she has met the threshold, but saying that ONLY the voters can somehow execute the law is just some nice sounding gaslighting.

What he's doing is what is often done by politicians when they should be applying the law to other politicians - abdicating his responsibility like a coward and just not doing it. And if he holds another Republican accountable under the law someone might do it to him too at some point. There is honor among thieves, after all.
 
2022-05-16 6:47:23 PM  
Good for them. There's so much apathy going around-me included, that it's nice to see someone's still got a bit of fight left.
 
2022-05-16 6:50:26 PM  

Skids: Good for them. There's so much apathy going around-me included, that it's nice to see someone's still got a bit of fight left.


I think we overuse the word apathy. While everyone's connotations are different, for me I'd go with "indifference" here, especially for those with the power to do something and are simply choosing not to.

I don't think you're wrong--it just made me think of the words and contemplate their differences.
 
2022-05-16 6:50:36 PM  

Subtonic: Sporkfoot.


more like foot-face.
 
2022-05-16 6:50:44 PM  

Weatherkiss: Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims. Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

Cool, so it's up to a bunch of inbred sister-farkers with a 7th grade education over whether or not an insurrectionist should be barred from seeking elected office. Just the way the founding fathers intended.


But I've been told repeatedly in pol tab threads voters are not to blame for Republicans winning elections, but rather it's always inept Democratic leadership and poor messaging.

What to believe...

media0.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-16 6:50:46 PM  
A fool and their money.....
 
2022-05-16 6:52:01 PM  

Subtonic: Sporkfoot.


i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-16 6:59:17 PM  
This article is almost the opposite of what I was hoping to read
 
2022-05-16 7:00:11 PM  

xanadian: The five voters...

:-/


It's quite impressive, actually, when you consider they account for 40% of the people in her district who have actually voted dem any time this century.
 
2022-05-16 7:15:01 PM  

Skids: Good for them. There's so much apathy going around-me included, that it's nice to see someone's still got a bit of fight left.


Yeah because it's a great idea to personally piss off the AG of you state when there is only five of you.

//I thinking that would be a very stupid thing to do
 
2022-05-16 7:19:34 PM  
Of course the GQP is fighting to retain the worst people.  That's their thing.  The party of terrible.
 
2022-05-16 7:23:25 PM  

pxsteel: Skids: Good for them. There's so much apathy going around-me included, that it's nice to see someone's still got a bit of fight left.

Yeah because it's a great idea to personally piss off the AG of you state when there is only five of you.

//I thinking that would be a very stupid thing to do


That's enough outta you sporkfoot.

The legendary Sporkfoot is said to emerge from the hills Georgia to loudly vent her spleen in the town square. A grotesque and disgusting act that is not finished until it has deemed that enough of the horrified onlookers have witnessed the gruesome display. It will then retreat back to it's woods to feed and return a week later.
 
2022-05-16 7:44:30 PM  
Pilate washed his hands too.
 
2022-05-16 7:55:09 PM  

Weatherkiss: Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims. Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

Cool, so it's up to a bunch of inbred sister-farkers with a 7th grade education over whether or not an insurrectionist should be barred from seeking elected office. Just the way the founding fathers intended.


I would never call them sister-farkers. That implies their sisters give consent.
 
2022-05-16 8:02:12 PM  
She's as dumb as a box of rocks. But still a useful idiot to the GOP.
 
2022-05-16 8:12:50 PM  

Skids: Good for them. There's so much apathy going around-me included, that it's nice to see someone's still got a bit of fight left.


Not to mention incompetence with the English language.
 
2022-05-16 8:24:33 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Weatherkiss: Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims. Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

Cool, so it's up to a bunch of inbred sister-farkers with a 7th grade education over whether or not an insurrectionist should be barred from seeking elected office. Just the way the founding fathers intended.

I would never call them sister-farkers. That implies their sisters give consent.


How is that implied?
 
2022-05-16 8:31:33 PM  
pxsteel:

//I thinking that would be a very stupid thing to do

Of course you are.

LOL.
 
2022-05-16 8:47:53 PM  
HOnestly you have sedition by TFG and MTG and their ilk DAILY, and it's a crime, and the judge was presented with clear evidence of such sedition.

Why make a law if you're not going to enforce it when the future of the republic is at stake?
 
2022-05-16 8:52:51 PM  
Mopery Tainted Grief needs go to WWE where she belongs.
 
2022-05-16 9:04:11 PM  
MTG has never etablished her eligibility to run for office.   If they want to investigate anything, it shoudl be the death threats to the candidates who opposed her and their families.   Nothing came of that, right?
 
2022-05-16 9:19:04 PM  
FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.
 
2022-05-16 9:48:28 PM  

Emposter: FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.


Raffensberger is still kissing trump's ass. I don't doubt his life is being threatened by his redcap thugs to this day. I don't know how his wife can stand to look at him.
 
2022-05-16 10:02:54 PM  

ElPrimitivo: She's not appealing.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that.


She's pretty appalling though.
 
2022-05-16 10:19:07 PM  

Emposter: FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.


Which Federal laws are you referring to exactly? Because § 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the "...power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" and yet Congress has failed to enact any legislation specific to the operation of § 3, which contains the disqualification language.

Congress has of course enacted general statutes criminalizing treason, sedition, etc. but of course no candidate challenged under § 3 has been convicted of any such charge.

So absent specific legislation by Congress, and absent even a criminal conviction under Federal statute, States are not empowered to act in that vacuum and substitute their own judgement on how they really, really think Congress should have acted or how the Constitution is to be interpreted.
 
2022-05-16 10:20:04 PM  

davynelson: HOnestly you have sedition by TFG and MTG and their ilk DAILY, and it's a crime, and the judge was presented with clear evidence of such sedition.

Why make a law if you're not going to enforce it when the future of the republic is at stake?


So the judge was supposed to assume they were guilty of a crime without a trial or even being charged?
 
2022-05-16 10:32:46 PM  

Boondock3806: 40% of the people in her district who have actually voted dem any time this century.



So, 12.5 voters, amirite?
 
2022-05-16 11:12:22 PM  
Quit making fun of Neandertoe. The modern world confuses and frightens her.
 
2022-05-16 11:46:24 PM  

Aquapope: Subtonic: Sporkfoot.

[i.imgflip.com image 700x396]


Can we just get rid of her, just so us sporks lose this connotation? Please?
 
2022-05-17 9:05:35 AM  
FTFA: Beaudrot found that the voters hadn't produced sufficient evidence to back their claims.


Uuhhmmm... Wasn't there video of her telling people to come out on J6 because they had huge plans or something? It couldn't get anymore clearer than that, unless they found tape of her saying "We plan on seditioning that day".

Come the fark on!
 
2022-05-17 8:03:04 PM  

dirkhardly: Emposter: FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.

Which Federal laws are you referring to exactly? Because § 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the "...power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" and yet Congress has failed to enact any legislation specific to the operation of § 3, which contains the disqualification language.

Congress has of course enacted general statutes criminalizing treason, sedition, etc. but of course no candidate challenged under § 3 has been convicted of any such charge.

So absent specific legislation by Congress, and absent even a criminal conviction under Federal statute, States are not empowered to act in that vacuum and substitute their own judgement on how they really, really think Congress should have acted or how the Constitution is to be interpreted.


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
 
2022-05-17 8:06:02 PM  

Emposter: dirkhardly: Emposter: FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.

Which Federal laws are you referring to exactly? Because § 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the "...power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" and yet Congress has failed to enact any legislation specific to the operation of § 3, which contains the disqualification language.

Congress has of course enacted general statutes criminalizing treason, sedition, etc. but of course no candidate challenged under § 3 has been convicted of any such charge.

So absent specific legislation by Congress, and absent even a criminal conviction under Federal statute, States are not empowered to act in that vacuum and substitute their own judgement on how they really, really think Congress should have acted or how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


Scratch that, that's executive branch officers.
 
2022-05-17 9:13:54 PM  

Emposter: Emposter: dirkhardly: Emposter: FTFA: Raffensperger affirmed that decision, writing that whether Greene's political statements and actions disqualify her from office "is rightfully a question for the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District."

If sending an insurrectionist to Congress was a question for voters, it wouldn't have been prohibited by the Constitution and Federal law.

Which Federal laws are you referring to exactly? Because § 5 of the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the "...power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" and yet Congress has failed to enact any legislation specific to the operation of § 3, which contains the disqualification language.

Congress has of course enacted general statutes criminalizing treason, sedition, etc. but of course no candidate challenged under § 3 has been convicted of any such charge.

So absent specific legislation by Congress, and absent even a criminal conviction under Federal statute, States are not empowered to act in that vacuum and substitute their own judgement on how they really, really think Congress should have acted or how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Scratch that, that's executive branch officers.


Yes, we know there are Federal statutes covering treason, sedition, etc. The problem remains that none of the challenged candidates have been convicted under any such statute. That's how we determine someone has in fact done the thing they are accused of in these situations. Not, "Look at it, it's so obvious they did it."
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.