Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 07, 2025

GOP NC Supreme Court Candidate Finally Concedes

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The unprecedented GOP attempt to overturn a Democratic victory in a North Carolina State Supreme Court race suffered a major setback on Monday.

It came at the hands of a stalwart conservative judge appointed by Donald Trump.[image or embed]

-- Mother Jones (@motherjones.com) May 6, 2025 at 10:00 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why is the GCCCP full of such straight up ---- ass bitches that cannot accept they lost?

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-06 07:12 AM | Reply

In his 68-page ruling, Myers said Griffin and the NC GOP's unprecedented effort to challenge over 65,000 ballots presented an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

"This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals," he wrote. "This case is also about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible.

"To this court, the answer to each of those questions is no.'"

www.charlotteobserver.com

#2 | Posted by qcp at 2025-05-06 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals,"

And I thought this was legal when it was Bush v Gore.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 09:23 AM | Reply

MAGA are straight up cheaters and liars and stealers. They don't GAF. And nothing says "leader" like somebody who doesn't care how others perceive them when they cheat, lie, and steal

#4 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-05-06 09:32 AM | Reply

The sole Republican judge to defend the rule of law in North Carolina is Republican Justice Richard Dietz, who has remained steadfast in his belief that rewriting the rules of an election after the election is unlawful and unwise. Resisting the pressures of partisanship in North Carolina is no easy feat these days, and his courage should be commended.

Outside of North Carolina, however, Griffin's crusade is over. North Carolina may be a state where Republicans get to do whatever they want to do, but federal judges aren't willing to participate in what is essentially a judicial coup. Griffin can appeal this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, but they shouldn't expect a different result there. That court has already ruled against the argument once.

It's yet another reminder of how baldly and awfully partisan judges in North Carolina have become. The depth and diversity of people who know this lawsuit has no merit is incredible. It includes voters from both parties, elections officials of all political stripes, military leaders and hundreds of judges, government officials and attorneys from across the political spectrum. Now, a Trump-appointed federal judge has agreed. It's North Carolina's Republican judges who are the extreme outliers.

Republicans cannot lament a rogue judiciary or overreach by "radical left judges." They cannot accuse the judge who issued the ruling of partisan bias, although they may still try. This is a conservative judge, appointed by Donald Trump. He is a member of the conservative Federalist Society and the National Rifle Association. It's exactly the kind of judge Republicans would hope " or expect " to side with them. But he isn't " he's rebuking Republican logic and laying bare their attempt to steal an election.

A Trump-appointed judge rebukes NC judges' quest to overturn an election

#5 | Posted by qcp at 2025-05-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Are the filth-smearing, cop-killing MAGA berserkers going to ransack Raleigh after this defeat?

#6 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-05-06 03:26 PM | Reply

However, Myers has put his own order on hold for seven days to give Griffin a chance to appeal.

from the primary source:
archive.is
www.newsobserver.com

The court ruled that this omission, which affected over 60,000 of the challenged voters, was likely not the voters' fault and therefore could not be used to cancel their ballots.

When Republicans took control of the elections board last week for the first time in nearly a decade,

omission
not the voters' fault
Republicans took control of the elections board last week for the first time in nearly a decade
(so, dem control of the election board resulted in 'omissions')

#7 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-06 11:39 PM | Reply

Eschew secondary sources!

#8 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-06 11:41 PM | Reply

Democracy only works if the people are educated, both as to how things work and to how others think and what their needs are. Problem is, the most educated hate Trump.
As it is, the Republican Party of today is dedicated to weakening our international relationships, strengthening the groups who hate, and allying the hate with the rich to try and stay in power as a minority party.

#9 | Posted by Hughmass at 2025-05-07 07:37 AM | Reply

presented an unconstitutional burden

The magat wing of the GCCCP doesn't give a ---- about the constitution other than their poorly understood interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

#10 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-07 07:51 AM | Reply

The repug --------- finally conceded.

www.politico.com

#11 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2025-05-07 11:10 AM | Reply

People like Republican Jefferson Griffin need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:12 AM | Reply

the primary source:
apnews.com

presented an unconstitutional burden
#10 | Posted by Nixon
in context:

A state law had authorized these persons to vote in state elections. While these people had no substantive right to have their votes counted, Myers wrote, there is "sufficient evidence" that some people are mistakenly on the list and have no opportunity to contest their ineligibility, which "represents a unconstitutional burden on the right to vote."

Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts' decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.

The problem registrations resulted from a decade of dem control of the election board, because dems set rules to stack the deck in their favor and they "doesn't give a ---- about the constitution other than their poorly understood interpretation of the 2nd amendment."

The takeaway here I can see, is that some ballots were indeed not compliant, but fixing them retroactively is decided to be a problem. Next time, maybe don't let dems control your election board, because they don't do a good job and later will claim victim status.

#13 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 11:50 AM | Reply

@#7

More from that link...

... In his ruling, Myers noted that the state had approved an exemption to the ID requirement for military and overseas voters that was in place for months before the election, but was never challenged until after.

He also noted that Griffin only challenged these votes in six of North Carolina's 100 counties, all of which lean Democratic.

"When the underlying basis for a protest is a rule that applies statewide, a geographically selective protest raises equal protection concerns and the specter of post-election mischief," Myers wrote. ...


#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democracy only works if the people are educated, both as to how things work and to how others think and what their needs are. Problem is, the most educated hate Trump.
As it is, the Republican Party of today is dedicated to weakening our international relationships, strengthening the groups who hate, and allying the hate with the rich to try and stay in power as a minority party.

#9 | Posted by Hughdouche

Taking on this nonsensical TDS moron post entire is too much of a task!
I'll skip to the end-

try and stay in power as a minority party.
-irony writing itself status: checked

#15 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 11:54 AM | Reply

#14 | Posted by LampLighter

I agree, the dems entire argument is based on technicalities, some of which they manufactured themselves as controllers of the state election board for nearly a decade.

#16 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 11:58 AM | Reply

"Next time, maybe don't let dems control your election board, because they don't do a good job and later will claim victim status."

The Republican is the one claiming Victim Status.
Being a Victim is what Republicans do best.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:58 AM | Reply

The Republican is the one claiming Victim Status.
#17 | Posted by snoofy

Oh, you mean the Republican that proved in state court that ineligible ballots were counted? is the one claiming Victim Status?
And was defeated by a fed judge, NOT IN HIS LANE*, because the poor noncompliant voters were burdened by requirements which were in place but not enforced at the time of voting, because dem control of election board, were NOT set as 'victims'?

* I learned here, from dems, that STATES are in control of their elections NOT THE FED. How many times have you used that argument yourself?

#18 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 12:11 PM | Reply

@#16 ... the dems entire argument is based on technicalities ...

Yup.

Like the major technicality of the Republicans apparently changing the rules for voting after the election had taken place, and applying those changes to mainly Democratic areas of the state?

If the Republicans didn't like the rules, why did they wait until after the election to challenge them? My guess would be that the change made after the election, and narrowly applied to mainly Democratic areas, was the only way they could find to rig the outcome of the election.

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 12:23 PM | Reply

"Oh, you mean the Republican that proved in state court that ineligible ballots were counted? is the one claiming Victim Status?"

That's the one!
The Republican Loser is claiming Victim Status.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:26 PM | Reply

"I learned here, from dems, that STATES are in control of their elections NOT THE FED"

Bush v Gore on Line 2.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:26 PM | Reply

@#21

More from the article cites in #7...

... "This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals," he wrote.

"This case is also about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible.

"To this court, the answer to each of those questions is no.'" ...



#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While these people had no substantive right to have their votes counted, Myers wrote, there is "sufficient evidence" that some people are mistakenly on the list and have no opportunity to contest their ineligibility, which "represents a unconstitutional burden on the right to vote."

Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts' decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.

-I don't know why I bother, sometimes. I already know you're a sealion and no amount of repetition will suffice. There were ineligible votes involved per your pet judge who left his lane to get involved and thwart the state supreme court, why they didn't fix it earlier I can't say. Probably has something to do with strategic incompetence of democrats in control of the election board, perhaps concentrating their efforts in particular districts.

The dems still have only 2 judges even with her installed, so it doesn't matter so much as that now, due to the attention, the election board under their new management can clean up the rolls and make sure everybody plays fair before the next election.

#23 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 03:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I learned here, from dems, that STATES are in control of their elections NOT THE FED. How many times have you used that argument yourself?
#18 | POSTED BY COLDFATSO

Another sockpuppet outs themself.

Hey, fatso, you created your username on 4/28. It's 5/7.

What have you read in the past 10 days for you to come to such a conclusion?

Don't worry responding.

You're a liar and a hypocrite.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 03:53 PM | Reply

^dude I been here like 20 years

#25 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 04:22 PM | Reply

Anyway CLOWN there're ideas being discussed, why do you want to gossip instead?
Are you not at level?

#26 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 04:27 PM | Reply

RESET EVERY ROLL you have no other choice except NUKE FROM ORBIT
Everybody register again, the rolls are irretrievably polluted.

#27 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 04:30 PM | Reply

STAR ID required to register

#28 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 04:33 PM | Reply

^dude I been here like 20 years

#25 | Posted by chiligordo

Me too! But I've never changed my alias. So why did you feel the need to do so?

#29 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-07 06:13 PM | Reply

try and stay in power as a minority party.
-irony writing itself status: checked

#15 | Posted by chiligordo a

Literally every thing this foaming fool says is about democrats is actually about republicans.

Lets start listing his past aliases. I recognize his raving but it's been too long for me to put my finger on it.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-07 06:19 PM | Reply

@#29 ... So why did you feel the need to do so? ....

Just look at that current alias' comments.

Your question is asked and answered.

Comments that seem to be more disruptive than contributory.

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 06:33 PM | Reply

@#7

More from that link...

... In his ruling, Myers noted that the state had approved an exemption to the ID requirement for military and overseas voters that was in place for months before the election, but was never challenged until after.

He also noted that Griffin only challenged these votes in six of North Carolina's 100 counties, all of which lean Democratic.

"When the underlying basis for a protest is a rule that applies statewide, a geographically selective protest raises equal protection concerns and the specter of post-election mischief," Myers wrote. ...


#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 06:36 PM | Reply

More from the article cited in #7...

... "This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals," he wrote.

"This case is also about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible.

"To this court, the answer to each of those questions is no.'" ...


#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 06:38 PM | Reply

^dude I been here like 20 years

#25 | Posted by chiligordo

Joined 2025/04/28

MAGA math strikes again

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-05-07 07:04 PM | Reply

The problem registrations resulted from a decade of dem control of the election board, because dems set rules to stack the deck in their favor and they "doesn't give a ---- about the constitution other than their poorly understood interpretation of the 2nd amendment."

#13 | Posted by chiligordo

Dems huh?

"Relevant to those voters, North Carolina's General Assembly enacted a voter identification ("ID") law in 2018, and after years oflitigation, that law took effect in 2023. But the law has never been applied to overseas military and civilian voters who cast absentee ballots. The North Carolina Board of Elections (the "State Board"), on a bipartisan and unanimous basis, exempted those voters from the voter ID law; on April 1, 2024, the State Board, pursuant to its rulemaking authority under state law, promulgated a final rule which provided that overseas military and civilian voters were not required to submit a copy of their photo ID with their absentee ballot. An identical temporary administrative rule had already been in effect for eight months before promulgation of the final rule. "

Bipartisan, Unanimous decision by the Elections Board over a year ago
Never challenged in Court or by the Legislature or Governor

Facts don't care about your feelings, MAGAt.

#35 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-05-07 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35 | Posted by Sycophant
-It's not so simple.
-That's fine for those votes, but there are also these:

While these people had no substantive right to have their votes counted, Myers wrote, there is "sufficient evidence" that some people are mistakenly on the list and have no opportunity to contest their ineligibility, which "represents a unconstitutional burden on the right to vote."
(I'll leave it to you to discover exactly he's talking about here. It's in the primary source link):
www.newsobserver.com

-Also these:
Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts' decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.

-Already dropped at the state level were these:
While Griffin initially challenged over 65,000 ballots, the number of votes in contention was significantly reduced by the Republican-dominated North Carolina Supreme Court last month when it rejected his largest challenge, which dealt with voters who didn't have certain identifying numbers in the state's registration database. The court ruled that this omission, which affected over 60,000 of the challenged voters, was likely not the voters' fault and therefore could not be used to cancel their ballots.

-So whose fault was it, this omission?

When Republicans took control of the elections board last week for the first time in nearly a decade

-I see, WHO was in charge of doing the registrations then? The registrations featuring this omission which affected over 60,000 registrations? THE DEMS WHO HAD CONTROL OF THE ELECTION BOARD FOR TEN YEARS? Gee I wonder if there's a pattern to these omissive entries, like, say.. CONCENTRATED IN HEAVY DEM DISTRICTS?

Read more at: www.newsobserver.com

#36 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-07 08:27 PM | Reply

-I see, WHO was in charge of doing the registrations then? The registrations featuring this omission which affected over 60,000 registrations? THE DEMS WHO HAD CONTROL OF THE ELECTION BOARD FOR TEN YEARS? Gee I wonder if there's a pattern to these omissive entries, like, say.. CONCENTRATED IN HEAVY DEM DISTRICTS?

Read more at: www.newsobserver.com

#36 | Posted by chiligordo

When republicans lose they get so angry about how many people were allowed to participate in democracy, and demand further restrictions on democracy and even MORE systemic advantages than they already get.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-07 11:40 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort