Election denying Wisconsin Republicans fire state election official

[Colorforms]

Your pathetic dodge is noted. Standard fare from the deplorables.

ooo opting to get ignored early on. Your wish is my command.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

ooo opting to get ignored early on. Your wish is my command.

Hello? Whether you ignore someone or dodge what they say doesn’t matter - either way you contribute nothing.

 

[EatTheRich]

I think that whether something is gerrymandered or not should be ruled upon by people who haven't already decided that the maps are gerrymandered. It's called being objective, something the leftie press gave up long ago.

So only the willfully blind and acquiescent are objective? Anyway, all she wanted to do was to make the case in court for the position supported by a majority of voters. The proof still had to be supplied. But Republicans by taking the choice away from the voters have deprived the courts of an opportunity to see the evidence. One wonders what they are afraid of.

 

[Colorforms]

So only the willfully blind and acquiescent are objective? Anyway, all she wanted to do was to make the case in court for the position supported by a majority of voters. The proof still had to be supplied. But Republicans by taking the choice away from the voters have deprived the courts of an opportunity to see the evidence. One wonders what they are afraid of.

*sigh* She RAN on claiming the maps were already corrupt. Republicans are holding up for the integrity of the position, which Protasiewicz apparently sees as her opportunity to legislate from the bench.

 

[EatTheRich]

*sigh* She RAN on claiming the maps were already corrupt. Republicans are holding up for the integrity of the position, which Protasiewicz apparently sees as her opportunity to legislate from the bench.

She was elected because the majority agreed the corruption had to be cleaned up. Which in and of itself proves the truth of the claim (since the problem with gerrymandering is its threat to majority rule).

 

[Colorforms]

She was elected because the majority agreed the corruption had to be cleaned up. Which in and of itself proves the truth of the claim (since the problem with gerrymandering is its threat to majority rule).

In order to clean corruption, you need to prove it exists. Like you, Protasiewicz is programmed with an opinion, right or wrong, that the maps are corrupt. That makes her ruling corrupt.

She should do what an ethical supreme court justice should do and recuse herself. If she is too corrupt to do that, then she doesn't deserve the position.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

In order to clean corruption, you need to prove it exists. Like you, Protasiewicz is programmed with an opinion, right or wrong, that the maps are corrupt. That makes her ruling corrupt.

She should do what an ethical supreme court justice should do and recuse herself. If she is too corrupt to do that, then she doesn't deserve the position.

Good thing those winger judges have open minds, eh?

;-)

 

[EatTheRich]

In order to clean corruption, you need to prove it exists. Like you, Protasiewicz is programmed with an opinion, right or wrong, that the maps are corrupt. That makes her ruling corrupt.

She should do what an ethical supreme court justice should do and recuse herself. If she is too corrupt to do that, then she doesn't deserve the position.

You know she wasn’t a judge, right? She was part of the executive branch, voted into office to clean up the corruption. If the corruption hadn’t been real, she couldn’t have won the election, since the opinion of the majority that the system is unfair to voters in and of itself shows that the system is unfair to voters.

 

[Colorforms]

Good thing those winger judges have open minds, eh?

;-)

At least open minded enough not to announce a decision before even sitting on the case.

 

[Colorforms]

You know she wasn’t a judge, right? She was part of the executive branch, voted into office to clean up the corruption. If the corruption hadn’t been real, she couldn’t have won the election, since the opinion of the majority that the system is unfair to voters in and of itself shows that the system is unfair to voters.

Justice, isn't supposed to be by popular demand. We aren't a fascist nation yet. As badly as you want it to be.

 

[EatTheRich]

Justice, isn't supposed to be by popular demand. We aren't a fascist nation yet. As badly as you want it to be.

How are elections that better reflect the will of the voters fascist?

 

[Colorforms]

How are elections that better reflect the will of the voters fascist?

The voters got their will. Protasiewicz is a sitting judge. If her rulings are based on what makes her and her voters happy, then that's politics, not justice.

It would be no different than if she let a murderer go just because he was popular among her voters. You're arguing exactly that. That justice is the purview of the voter.

Not quite a sane nor rational take, I think.

 

[EatTheRich]

The voters got their will. Protasiewicz is a sitting judge. If her rulings are based on what makes her and her voters happy, then that's politics, not justice.

It would be no different than if she let a murderer go just because he was popular among her voters. You're arguing exactly that. That justice is the purview of the voter.

Not quite a sane nor rational take, I think.

No, she is not just a judge. She was elected to be Elections Commission Administrator, that is, someone whose job it is to make political judgment calls about fairness. That she won the votes of the majority shows that the majority wanted her to make the political judgment calls she promised to make when she ran. But the Republican majority (elected by a minority of voters, unlike her) overturned the vote of the majority in order to maintain an election system that the majority felt effectively disfranchised by.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

At least open minded enough not to announce a decision before even sitting on the case.

I see. It’s better if the wingers hide what they will do? Honesty must be punished?

;-)

 

[Colorforms]

No, she is not just a judge. She was elected to be Elections Commission Administrator, that is, someone whose job it is to make political judgment calls about fairness. That she won the votes of the majority shows that the majority wanted her to make the political judgment calls she promised to make when she ran. But the Republican majority (elected by a minority of voters, unlike her) overturned the vote of the majority in order to maintain an election system that the majority felt effectively disfranchised by.

She is a sitting judge on the state supreme court. Another issue you're weighing in on that you have no clue about. God, what a waste of time.

 

[Colorforms]

I see. It’s better if the wingers hide what they will do? Honesty must be punished?

;-)

It is better to listen to both sides before making a decision. I know lefties hate having to listen to another side. Their programming seems pretty absolute.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It is better to listen to both sides before making a decision. I know lefties hate having to listen to another side. Their programming seems pretty absolute.

Again, you’re simply pretending that the wingers on the court have open minds. You know that’s false. You have to pretend.

 

[Colorforms]

Again, you’re simply pretending that the wingers on the court have open minds. You know that’s false. You have to pretend.

I'm certainly not making accusations that I can't prove. You, on the other hand....

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I'm certainly not making accusations that I can't prove. You, on the other hand....

Huh? You just said the wingers have open minds. And the lib judge does not.

You just make shit up and then you just deny it, accusing someone else of doing it.

Deplorable!