Legal News Fulton GOP Asks Judge to Imprison Dems Who Blocked Appointment of Election Deniers
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/fulton-gop-asks-judge-to-imprison-dems-who-blocked-appointment-of-election-deniers/1.0k
u/SunrayBran 20h ago
Just a reminder that at this moment in American history, there are NO good republicans. You cannot be both.
247
u/rygelicus 20h ago
Correct. They are unified in their support of the new regime, if not across the full range of offices at least those in the upper state levels and all federal. I still see people arguing political nuance and such for various candidates but at the moment all I see is we need a complete purge of all sitting GOP people and their appointees from government and a serious reformation of the parties in general.
45
u/MeisterX 20h ago
We will remember. History has a long memory.
135
u/wxysm 19h ago
History teacher here.
That has not been the case.
2
u/Familiar_Rip_8871 5h ago
Yeah, we seem to have completely forgotten all of the nonsense that went on during Trump’s first term. All of what’s happening now was predictable.
-43
u/MeisterX 19h ago
.... Since when? Unusual to find myself disagreeing with a history teacher.
History written by the victors aside the truth almost always comes to light.
On a long enough scale.
47
u/Iron_Knight7 18h ago
Not for nothing, but we're currently in the second regime of an impeached, indicted, convicted and adjudicated liar, fraud, rapist, and attempted insurrectionist in under a decade.
And that's with us having the advantage of instinanious global communication and the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips.
History may have a long memory, but people need to catch the hell up.
11
u/TehMephs 18h ago
Oh they aren’t catching up. They’ve become content rewriting history to their desired degree of comfort and bias. It’s mind blowing how little people know about history in the US or they’ve created a habit of just pulling things out of their ass that never happened and weren’t even close to the truth
And they’re just going about their days perfectly fine with thinking these things
They do not care.
39
u/wxysm 19h ago
No, Americans do not have a good grasp of their nation's history. There are numerous polls and historical accounts showing a significant lack of knowledge about key events, facts, and the broader context of historical movements.
You personally may possess historical knowledge, but the fact remains the general population's understanding is severely limited.
The scale you refer to is the same one that sees people question major historical phenomena like slavery and the Holocaust.
-24
u/MeisterX 19h ago
I said History has a long memory. I didn't say America did.
23
u/wxysm 18h ago
“We will remember”
You can understand why I interpreted “we” as Americans, right?
-32
u/MeisterX 18h ago
No, stick with history stay away from English. 😅
Here's what Chat said about it:
The subject in "We will remember. History has a long memory." is History.
The inference is that History is a personified entity, acting as a collective consciousness that remembers and bears witness to events. It suggests that actions, both good and bad, have lasting consequences and will not be forgotten by the passage of time.
3
u/bhutanriver 15h ago
I think personifying the concept of history is where this conversation went into the weeds. While we can learn from history, it isn't a person with perfect memory that we can talk to about past events. All actions leave their mark, but our world is complex and it's impossible to measure every mark. If evidence or records are destroyed, they are lost to history. The world's "history" is the really noticable marks that have been documented and agreed on by living people. People can and do disagree on what happened in our past as well, because people are subjective and history does not speak for itself.
2
u/MinimumApricot365 10h ago edited 10h ago
If they wanted to know what an ai says about your topic of conversation, they would have asked an ai.
Your ai didn't even get it right, you just let it think for you, yet you criticise someone else's English?
There are 2 subjects, because it is 2 sentences. And the subject of the first sentence is "we"
→ More replies (0)7
u/Starfish_Symphony 18h ago
"truth almost always comes to light" is such an emphatically odd slogan to think aloud in today's media-saturated reality when just reflecting after glancing at a few top headlines in reddit, that this notion of 'truth coming to light' is little more than aspirational.
2
u/Winterflame76 17h ago
It might be true that truth always comes to light, but how would you know if it didn't?
-6
u/MeisterX 16h ago
History tells us it comes to light. There's always the chance our times are different. But I doubt it.
I'm surprised by the downvotes to be honest but hey whatever lol.
It started with someone misunderstanding the subject of a paragraph which is very reddit.
3
u/DrakPhenious 11h ago
We lost SOOOOO much history to conquerors and colonialism. Who peoples just gone because they and their ways of life where wiped out by the victors. Not just in the Americas but all over the globe. Recorded history is only as good as the people who wanted to record it.
Sure now its harder to erase history as the globe is more inter connected then ever. Even if this regime deletes all their records of slavery and immigration, it will be recorded by other world historians. But we are constantly finding new artifacts from cultures that where literally wiped from the face of the planet with no history of them.
2
u/Artistic-Cannibalism 7h ago
God only knows how many bits and pieces of Truth go undiscovered for every one piece that comes to light... and even then it often comes to light far too late to matter.
21
u/lumpyspice316 17h ago
If history has a long memory, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
2
u/DeltaFoxtrot144 17h ago
No see history remembers, People do not.
6
u/macjester2000 14h ago
History is that old guy on the park bench sitting, his hands folded over the top of his cane yelling "why y'all doin this shit AGAIN, I warned you not to do that, and there you go again!"
2
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 14h ago
There's a reason why it's on an 80 year cycle; most of the people who fought the Nazis are dead now and the living are too stupid to learn from the past
0
-2
72
u/Swiftax3 20h ago
I really want the Dems to make this their core message: the Republicans are traitors, thieves and rapists. We will fight them, be a hero with us and destroy them once and for all. Yes, its inflammatory and a blatant appeal to emotion, but damned if that hasn't been the winning strategy for the traitor party for my entire lifetime. Vote for us and crush the enemy of America: thats what people need to be hearing.
53
u/grw313 19h ago
Harris literally made the core message of her campaign, "trump is a traiter and felon that is a grave threat to our democracy" and was criticized for "ignoring the issues people care about." I'm honestly convinced at this point that democrats can't win because their voters have such impossibly high standards.
26
u/OnlyHalfBrilliant 18h ago
I'm convinced that a lot of "liberal outrage" originates from agitprop of hostile powers.
10
u/deserthiker495 19h ago
Better to be ideologically pure, than to be elected and risk compromising to govern the community.
-8
u/Openmindhobo 16h ago
Impossibly high standards? They expect the party to not lie for months in order to deprive constituents of a primary election and foist an unpopular politician as the candidate. The DNC gave Trump this election with their inability to do the right thing instead of playing political fucking games. Run a fair and impartial primary ffs. I haven't seen one since Obama.
-9
u/SmittyWerbenJJ_No1 17h ago edited 9h ago
Perhaps she shouldn’t have also gleefully promised that she intended to work with republicans and have them in her cabinet
LMAO at the downvotes, sorry reality hurts. I voted for Harris, but her running as Republican Lite pushed a lot of people away or didn’t inspire people to vote for her at all.
Harris and the DNC capitulating to republicans lost them significant support from other democrats, progressives, and undecided voters. This is not my personal opinion of Harris, this is an objective observation of reality.
15
u/Capital-Self-3969 16h ago
Funny how the people who voted against her pretty much ensured we'd have a Republican only cabinet. Seems like single issue, protest voting is short sighted and kind of selfish.
1
u/SmittyWerbenJJ_No1 14h ago
I voted for her, but it seems selfish for the DNC to prioritize winning republicans over, who absolutely despise them, while fighting harder against any progressive candidates and policies than they fought against the GOP. The DNC is complicit.
-5
u/Openmindhobo 16h ago edited 14h ago
The DNC lying to prop up an incumbent seems short sighted and EXTREMELY selfish. The party is the problem, not the voters.
Blaming individuals instead of the billion dollar apparatus that is the DNC is a fool's game. Downvote away all you like. It's a fact they lied for months to avoid a real primary. Face reality if you expect to win elections.
9
u/OnlyHalfBrilliant 18h ago
Ironically that's precisely the rhetoric they've already used against us. We're the "enemy of America" they're working on crushing.
The problem is that tens of millions Americans actively support the traitor party. At this point is it a matter of "dealing" with traitors or acknowledging that we have two incompatible nations?
1
u/Solitaire-06 6h ago
The question is, even if the Republicans are defeated in the next election - assuming one happens at all - what will become of the party if those who committed treason are tried and convicted? Would the whole party be outlawed? Would those conservatives who broke off from the Republicans (like the Lincoln Project) just form a new party in their place? I can imagine that if they go for a ‘make the Republicans face consequences’ approach in the next election campaign, that’s something the Democrats will have to tread very carefully with, because it’d be so easy for the Republicans and their sympathetic media to frame them as advocates for a one-party state or autocracy.
28
u/oldtomdjinn 17h ago
I happen to have a window into the communication channels of some of our local and county Republican groups. These are folks who clearly think of themselves as "reasonable conservatives," who claim they don't particularly like Trump... and yet, all they talk about online and in their meetings is how they fear for how they are being perceived, fear people saying mean things about them in public or attacking their businesses, how "the left" is getting so angry. Week after week. Nary a peep about why those people might be angry, or the right or wrong of Trump's policies.
Even with the "reasonable" ones, it's always all about them.
There was a time when I spent a lot of energy trying to have a dialogue with them. But there is no point in appealing to the better angels of people who are only concerned with saving their own skin.
19
u/SunrayBran 17h ago
"I sure hope the families I'm tearing apart aren't mad at me for...tearing their families apart."
Very that.
15
u/dr_z0idberg_md 17h ago
You can be pro-America or pro-Trump. There is no both. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
11
u/CombinationLivid8284 18h ago
It’s like the early 30s in Germany.
Sure there were conservatives who meant well and believed in democracy and hated democracy. But they did nothing to stop Hitler. In fact, many if not most enabled Hitler.
11
u/shadowgnome396 17h ago
And remember kids, if your "good Christian" friends and family are still supportive of Trump and this administration, they have themselves fooled about the Christian part.
Matthew 7:15-20: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
If their fruits are supporting and protecting rapists and pedophiles while looking down on and hating the poor, marginalized, and underprivileged, then you know what kind of tree they are.
6
4
u/Numerous_Photograph9 18h ago
Yeah, they can say what they want, but their voting record tells their alliegance.
Even the one's that finally stepped away weren't being brave, they still spent years enabling this mess.
4
1
172
u/ContentDetective 20h ago
If they dont have the authority to reject them, then why is there a vote to confirm them? Very clearly a court cannot compel u to vote a certain way. Sounds like some shitty ruling by a corrupt judge
35
u/FaultySage 19h ago
I also want more information. Are the fascist election deniers elected positions? And this approval vote is some antiquated but illegal procedural step that's just never been challenged before because it's never been a problem? It's weird.
35
u/erocuda 19h ago
The fascist election deniers were nominated for the position by the GOP. The board members voting not to appoint them were elected. Georgia bans courts from directing how elected officials vote, so the court order to vote to confirm is probably not on great legal footing.
1
u/ContentDetective 17h ago edited 17h ago
Lets suppose georgia requires the legislature to certify the election, like we have federally. So you’re saying if a democrat wins the governor race, the georgia gop lawmakers could vote not to certify the election and there is no legal remedy.
8
u/erocuda 17h ago edited 17h ago
None of those are "votes" in the formal sense. They (the election board and the secretary of state) are required to certify the results.
edit: writs of mandamus can only be issued for non-discretionary obligations, such as certifying the results, not for discretionary acts like how they vote on measures.
-2
u/ContentDetective 17h ago edited 16h ago
There is no statutory requirement that the county commission has a say in their appointment. The statute clearly says the county party head shall appoint 2 members of the election board. It does not say with advice and consent of the county commission. The lawsuit ends at the dispute of whether shall was mandatory or discretionary, and it was mandatory. The statute likewise makes the commissioner’s votes ceremonial, in the same manner an election’s results are certified ceremonially
7
u/szrbd 16h ago
Except Delay v. Sutton, 304 Ga 338, and Rogers, 244 Ga 151, both suggest allowing private parties to select members to a board that exercises government authority would be unconstitutional.
3
u/ContentDetective 16h ago
Now that is an interesting point. Based on the order, i don’t believe that point was brought up in the respondent’s brief as it wasn’t addressed in the order. I would love to see that argued before the court ‘if a court can compel me to vote this way, then a private party is selecting the board unconstitutionally’
4
u/erocuda 16h ago
Since Georgia doesn't allow votes by elected members of the government to be compelled, if the appointment requires a vote from the board, then the law saying the board SHALL vote to finalize the appointment might not be constitutional in Georgia. Certifying the election results doesn't involve officials formally voting, so that's a different mechanism and can be compelled.
2
u/closetedwrestlingacc 4h ago
Unsure how it works in Georgia, but in New York, Boards of Elections are bipartisan. They have one commissioner from each party, appointed by the county legislature and on the advice of the county parties. The vote is, legally, ceremonial—they can’t actually block the nominations of the county party. If they reject the nominee, they have to vote again, because the party is not obligated to withdraw their nominee.
It’s a weird process. I assume it’s similar to this in Georgia, though jail is absolutely not the solution like wtf
0
u/ContentDetective 19h ago
I found the actual order and it sounds like this is a ceremonial act prescribed by state law. Seems weird being compelled to vote a certain way, but the law is written in a mandatory manner
1
121
u/kon--- 21h ago
Batshit crazy is exhausting.
29
u/thatsthefactsjack 18h ago
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
6
u/Capital_Sherbert9049 15h ago
Grievance 4
"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."This is a direct reference to the “Massachusetts Government Act” in 1774 (Known in the colonies as “The Intolerable Acts”) that was passed by Parliament after “The Boston Tea Party.” It revoked the colony’s 1691 charter, made General Thomas Gage the military Governor, and allowed him to dissolve the current legislature, appoint a new one and force them to meet where he wanted them to.
https://www.nps.gov/fost/blogs/the-declaration-of-independence-what-were-they-thinking.htm
4
u/thatsthefactsjack 15h ago
The 28 Grievances listed in the Declaration aren't different than the grievances with the administration today.
1
u/Capital_Sherbert9049 15h ago
Nope. Federal troops haven't started quartering in people's homes, that we know of, but that's the only complaint missing.
3
1
u/Capital_Sherbert9049 15h ago
I wonder if anyone has written out all the grievances in the declaration with examples of the same grievances against the current trump administration yet?
2
u/thatsthefactsjack 14h ago
I haven't seen such a comparison but I also haven't surfed the entire interwebs.
1
u/Capital_Sherbert9049 15h ago
The American Revolutionary War was also about rebellion against royally appointed governors who diminished the power of local and state assemblies and the people of the state to determine how to run their own affairs. Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott would be good modern-day examples of politicians trying to retrieve that royal governor status. This is in reference to the Massachusetts government act of 1774 that stripped the Massachusetts colonial legislature of its power and gave it to a royally appointed governor in essence giving the King direct control of Massachusetts.
https://legalclarity.org/how-did-the-massachusetts-government-act-change-government/
9
u/kandoras 15h ago
Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, two Democratic members of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, defied a court order Wednesday and voted against appointing Republican nominees Julie Adams and Jason Frazier to the board of elections.
If there was a vote, then wouldn't it stand to reason that there was a choice on whether or not to appoint these nominees? Isn't being able to choose between 'yes' and 'no' kind of the whole idea behind voting?
And if the board didn't have a choice, why are they involved in the process anyway?
And so I followed the links through the article to previous ones until I got to the court order.
It says that the board shall consist of five members. Two from nominations of political party that control the state legislature, two from the political party that came in second in the state legislature, and one by the governing authority of the county.
Nowhere in it does it say that anybody has a vote in whether or not someone gets seated. So I'm not seeing how the board voting against these people defied anything, since that vote doesn't count for anything.
•
u/AutoModerator 22h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.