Thank you for this article. But flabbergasted when you write, I probably would have voted for the Republican. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you might have voted Party Republican in November but that now, you would have repudiated Griffin and fellow MAGAs and like election deniers and stealers as not worth of your support.
Hyperbole. Sanity has NOT been restored in North Carolina. We have a state rep who wants to ban abortion from conception, another who wants to bring back the bathroom bill but this time have NC taxpayers pay for security outside of women’s bathrooms, and a bill letting anyone become a teacher with zero qualifications and no limit to classroom size anymore, for a start. All that happened here is the petulant loser of an election finally conceded defeat after 6 MONTHS of utterly baseless litigation.
"Hyperbole. Sanity has NOT been restored in North Carolina. We have a state rep who wants to ban abortion from conception..."
Do Democrats accept any limits on abortion?
"...another who wants to bring back the bathroom bill but this time have NC taxpayers pay for security outside of women’s bathrooms..."
Do you think it's OK for biological males to be in girls' bathrooms and vice versa?
"All that happened here is the petulant loser of an election finally conceded defeat after 6 MONTHS of utterly baseless litigation."
Not unlike what the Democrats have been doing since Election Day last year, acting like petulant losers but calling it "resistance", using the courts simply because they lost control of the WH and Congress.
Banning all abortions for all women at all times under all circumstances leads to either forced birth or forced death for women who are septic, ill, or unable to bring a pregnancy to term. Ensuring that abortion decisions are made rationally BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team -- creates many limits. Just none to be imposed by men like you.
Yes, a biological male in transition to becoming female should use the women's restroom if it is where she will be safe. There has been no incident that I have ever read of (in a reliable publication, rather than online right-wing screeds about rapists dressing up as women) that a transgendered female endangered a woman in a restroom. However, more than 100 transgendered women have been murdered over the past year. There is real danger there, but it's the other way than you pretend. If you ever come up with some data supporting your fear-mongering, I'm sure someone would love to hear it.
Name one Democrat who has said Trump didn't legitimately win the election by 49.5 percent. Democrats have accepted his win, and their loss of the the House and Senate. (He did not win "in a landslide" by any meaning of the word, but by a plurality of the vote, and a solid majority of the Electoral College. In fact, the same Electoral College majority that Joe Biden won along with a plurality of the popular vote -- but against which election Trump, Vance, and dozens of their Congressional sheeple are STILL whining that the election of 2020 was "stollen" (to use Trump's spelling.)
But Democrats expect every elected official to fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. Mr. Trump openly asserts that he's not sure if he has to follow the Constitution, or even obey court orders.
Democrats go to court, not as "petulant losers" but as outraged patriots, when the administration does things that are illegal or unconstitutional and won't back down. So far, those court cases have been won about 65% of the time, usually in rulings BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES, including those on the Supreme Court. Whereas Trump went to court to overturn the 2020 election 61 times, and lost all 61 cases, inlcuding HIS Supreme Court. This is indeed resistance: resistance to lawbreaking by the president and his men.
Logic does not seem your strong point, Hal, my friend. I guess that's what makes you a Republican.
"Banning all abortions for all women at all times under all circumstances leads to either forced birth or forced death for women who are septic, ill, or unable to bring a pregnancy to term."
Well, Andy, what percentage of pregnancies fall under those conditions every year? I made no mention of banning all abortions. I simply asked the OP, "Do Democrats accept any limits on abortion?"
"Ensuring that abortion decisions are made rationally BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team..."
You forgot the other person in the mix - the precious life inside the womb, and that's not by accident, is it? There was a time not very long ago when Democrats proudly proclaimed the value of protecting society's most vulnerable. I can't think of anything more vulnerable and defenseless than life inside a womb.
"Yes, a biological male in transition to becoming female should use the women's restroom if it is where she will be safe."
Sure, and let's forget about the real biological females who are made to feel as though they are the bad people in this scenario.
"However, more than 100 transgendered women have been murdered over the past year."
Here's the other side of the coin, and I'll even put in a link to the story (something you couldn't be bothered with):
"Trans Criminals: The Problem We Refuse to Define"
"Name one Democrat who has said Trump didn't legitimately win the election..."
My response neither stated nor implied such.
"But Democrats expect every elected official to fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution."
I expect every government official from the local level on up to "fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution", regardless of whether they belong to a political party or not.
"Mr. Trump openly asserts that he's not sure if he has to follow the Constitution, or even obey court orders."
That's because Trump doesn't really know what's in the Constitution, a distinction he probably shares with many members of Congress and the media. For example, no President should have the power to impose tariffs - Article I of the Constitution says that generating revenue is reserved specifically for the House of Representatives. Yet back in FDR's time Congress thought it a good idea to cede some of that power, and it's happened a couple of more times since. To my knowledge it has never been challenged at SCOTUS. Congress should get their collective heads out of their asses and rescind that power from the President.
"Democrats go to court, not as "petulant losers"..."
Uh, yes they do, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. They always have a hissy fit when they don't control some part of the government and try to de-legitimize it. Have you ever noticed that, in the past, Democrat supporters in the media whined about the "undemocratic" Senate and bemoaned the fact that Wyoming had the same number of senators as California?
Probably not. Their only recourse for the time being is litigation. And they hide behind the phrase "pro-democracy" to add some manner of legitimacy.
"So far, those court cases have been won about 65% of the time, usually in rulings BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES, including those on the Supreme Court."
Which goes to show that judges are actually independent, right? And the other 35% have gone in Trump's favor...and it's a good thing we have a judiciary. But I'm still waiting for the "doom and gloom" predictions that Trump will be some fascist/authoritarian. I mean, how many members of the media have been rounded up and put in a gulag? Rachel Maddow stated once that she really feared that if Trump was elected...AFAIK she's still at MSNBC making $25 million a year.
"Whereas Trump went to court to overturn the 2020 election 61 times, and lost all 61 cases, inlcuding HIS Supreme Court."
Do you know the "why" behind Trump's losses in court?
"Logic does not seem your strong point, Hal, my friend. I guess that's what makes you a Republican."
Three points to make here:
1. I am not your friend in any way, shape, manner or form - I simply don't know you well enough.
2. Just because I criticize Democrats does not automatically make me a Republican. Try not to jump to conclusions in the future.
3. There may have been some logic in your arguments, but it temporarily escapes me as to what they would be. Maybe in your next response you can point them out.
In your original comment responding to another, and to which I replied, you asked two questions, both of which I answered. The first, about what limits Democrats accept for abortions, I answered within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power (in a number of states) has chosen to do by not just limiting but criminalizing abortion -- women who have one, medical personnel who provide them, neighbors of friends who "abet" one by driving the woman to a clinic in another state, even residents of other states who "allow" a woman to come to their clinic. Viz., Texas.
The second, I answered from my wealth of knowledge of and lifetime of awareness of the ongoing danger to women, transsexuals, all LGBTQI people, and, in particular, Black and Hispanic drag queens. (I could care less about Commentary's reporting. It's too much like trying to find actual "news" on Fox.) Each spring various reports update the public on how many drag queens have been murdered so far this year, how many bodies of dead prostitutes have been found, etc. Linking the various stories for your benefit is a waste of my time.
In the third instance, you accuse by association, i.e., "Not unlike what the Democrats have been doing since Election Day last year, acting like petulant losers but calling it "resistance", using the courts simply because they lost control of the WH and Congress."
Sorry, but that is a typical response of Republicans (whether you're an enrolled party member or not). Accusing Democrats of "using the courts" rather than, in fact, turning to the courts, as every American has every right to do in order to make a claim of illegal, unconstitutional, or other tortious behavior. Going to court is not an act of petulance; it's an act of last resort when the other branches of government refuse to rein in lawbreaking, or even acknowledge it.
More to the point, though, is that in fact, the Republican leaders of Congress regularly use that same word, "petulant," to disparage Democrats' demands that laws be followed, and hold lie-filled press conferences when it's pointed out in or out of Congress that the most petulant, childish, whiny abuser of the court system of all time -- with more than 4,000 cases brought against him or brought by him against others during his career -- is their party head, Mr. Trump.
I was being polite (it's an old rhetorical usage) by calling you "my friend"; kind of what Congresspeople used to say about "my friend across the aisle" when referring to their bitterest opponent. But I won't bother with that now.
I don't know or care whether or not you're a Republican; member or not, you parrot the party's line.
I'm sure you can find (and follow) the logic of my earlier reply, if you try.
However, this is my last response; I don't like going down rabbit holes.
"The first, about what limits Democrats accept for abortions, I answered within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power..."
But you did not answer what limits Democrats would accept, which was the original question, not "within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power (in a number of states) has chosen to do..."
"The second, I answered from my wealth of knowledge of and lifetime of awareness of the ongoing danger...Linking the various stories for your benefit is a waste of my time."
So, you have a "wealth of knowledge" but are essentially too lazy to provide even one link...got it.
"Sorry, but that is a typical response of Republicans (whether you're an enrolled party member or not)."
Sorry, but that is the typical response from people who assume too much.
"More to the point, though, is that in fact, the Republican leaders of Congress regularly use that same word, "petulant," to disparage Democrats' demands..."
I use the same word ("petulant") to describe some of Trump's actions.
"I was being polite (it's an old rhetorical usage) by calling you "my friend";"
I actually don't believe you were trying to be "polite", but I won't belabor the point.
"I don't know or care whether or not you're a Republican; member or not, you parrot the party's line."
Yet you labeled me as such, again making assumptions, perhaps from your "wealth of knowledge".
I guess you didn't want to tackle the "life in the womb" aspect of your "BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team..." comment. Not surprised.
"However, this is my last response; I don't like going down rabbit holes."
Thank you for this clear description of what has happened in North Carolina. It has been just another one of those unfair and unjust events that keeps me up at night. Election shenanigans are the worst of these events. When we lose the rule of law we lose everything - and elections are part of that. This country is just fighting for its life at this point. Every single day.
I tried congratulating the justice but it was after hours. I guess the government can’t afford voicemail. I tried emailing, maybe that second glass of wine wasn’t helping, BUT another victory over these maga morons. I’m over the moon. There will be up and down days but I am so hopeful. These victories inspire me. And yes, I’ll drag any maga along with me who wants to see the light. A long dark tunnel but I see a flickering glimmer at the end. We can do this!
I'm assuming Republicans will continue to try to find ways to expand the tactic of election denialism: but they may be coming up against their limit. It just might be that the tactic really only works as a one-off, when they concentrate their efforts on a single crude but charismatic national figure.
Even that requires an immense apparatus and an elaborate long-term strategy. It can't work without the coordinated support of elements in Congress, the DOJ, and the Pentagon plus a massive and elaborate propaganda machine: Fox, Twitter, Newsmax, OAN, RT, Dinesh D'Souza, an infinity of podcasters, a thousand monkeys with keyboards (or at any rate a thousand Russian trolls), the Oklahoma Superintendent of Education, et al.
When all those elements are combined with the singular goal of creating an elaborate narrative of a single stolen election, it is, I suppose, possible to create a cult following and millions of True Believers.
But trotting it out on a more granular level, office by office, state by state, again and again and again---not so easy to pull that off. It begins to get old fast. There's a real risk the Republicans will overplay their hand. Even Oklahoma schoolchildren might start asking questions.
The safer bet for Republicans: to continue as they've begun: eroding voting rights, making it ever more difficult for targeted constituencies to vote, creating a sense of threat and vulnerability among those constituencies. Old school stuff. It worked in the American South for generations.
I love the audio versions. I can play solitaire while I listen and learn. But the words are so rich when you have to read them. I hear a different voice than the AI (not A1) regenerated voice. I love how Heather cox Richardson reads her essays, sometimes her assistant (human? AI?) his voice is so perfect. I hope it is her husband helping out in their Maine country house - probably not when you get 10’s, 100’s of thousands of responses to your work. I bet she has a paid assistant :). Whatever, I agree, I wish all articles had an audio “reader”. Just think how many visually impaired respondents you could assist. And soon, our AI friends will let us snuggle under their arms while we are read to sleep. I would buy that if I could afford it.
I also like when authors read their work - Heather Cox Richardson does a nice job as does Thomas Zimmer, another great writer on democracy. But in the Substack app at least, every article has an audio button for at least an automated voice - yet for some of the Contrarian articles, it is grayed out without explanation. That’s what I’m asking about.
Sanity will not be restored until the obvious partisans on the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court are removed in North Carolina. Their rulings were shameful perversions of the rule of law. They are not worthy of being called judges.
Like others, I was shocked to read that the author would probably have voted for this guy. Perhaps now that Mr. Griffin has exposed his total lack of character and judicial temperament by coming out as a virulent, partisan hypocrite who now gets to return to his elected position on the NC Court of Appeals, the author will rethink his probable support for Griffin's next election campaign.
But this is not sanity. This is authority finally listened to (while the state GOP licks its wounds and tries figuring out new unethical, illegal, and revolting ways to subvert the law.
The only reason both the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court voted as they did was because they are controlled by Republicans. They will continue to cement their reputation as the most corrupt state courts in the United States as long as they insist their party hacks in the legislature have the right to choose their own voters (by severe, racially biased gerrymandering) and eliminate the rights of non-favored voters (read: Black, Hispanic, elderly, student-age) to vote or even register.
No, Mr. Richer, this is not sanity. It is insane that it took six months of insanity to be brought to an end. But I wonder, when you look at the other judges on the Court of Appeals -- Griffin's colleagues -- and at his would-be colleagues on the State Supreme Court -- his five Republican allies -- how in the world can you hold your head up as a fellow at a prestigious Harvard school and the very strangely titled "State Democracy Defenders"?
Your co-partisans in the NC legislature have spent the past 15 years doing every single thing they could to DESTROY democracy (and Democracy) in our state. Mr. Griffin has been part of that movement. They have attempted to restrict the governor's powers despite the Constitution; tried to give authority over election boards to the state Commissioner of Commerce (?), the highest elected Republican on the Council of State, and redrawn racially gerrymandered district lines "with surgical precision."
I really wonder how you reconcile those GOP activities with "defending democracy."
Essentially the Republican candidate was attempting to get thousands of ballots invalidated because he lost by I think less than a thousand votes. It should never have gotten that far in the court system.
Thank you for this article. But flabbergasted when you write, I probably would have voted for the Republican. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you might have voted Party Republican in November but that now, you would have repudiated Griffin and fellow MAGAs and like election deniers and stealers as not worth of your support.
Right? Surely you would not vote for Griffin now that he has shown his true colors?
Hyperbole. Sanity has NOT been restored in North Carolina. We have a state rep who wants to ban abortion from conception, another who wants to bring back the bathroom bill but this time have NC taxpayers pay for security outside of women’s bathrooms, and a bill letting anyone become a teacher with zero qualifications and no limit to classroom size anymore, for a start. All that happened here is the petulant loser of an election finally conceded defeat after 6 MONTHS of utterly baseless litigation.
Hang in there. NC sucks.
"Hyperbole. Sanity has NOT been restored in North Carolina. We have a state rep who wants to ban abortion from conception..."
Do Democrats accept any limits on abortion?
"...another who wants to bring back the bathroom bill but this time have NC taxpayers pay for security outside of women’s bathrooms..."
Do you think it's OK for biological males to be in girls' bathrooms and vice versa?
"All that happened here is the petulant loser of an election finally conceded defeat after 6 MONTHS of utterly baseless litigation."
Not unlike what the Democrats have been doing since Election Day last year, acting like petulant losers but calling it "resistance", using the courts simply because they lost control of the WH and Congress.
Pretty far reach, Hal.
Banning all abortions for all women at all times under all circumstances leads to either forced birth or forced death for women who are septic, ill, or unable to bring a pregnancy to term. Ensuring that abortion decisions are made rationally BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team -- creates many limits. Just none to be imposed by men like you.
Yes, a biological male in transition to becoming female should use the women's restroom if it is where she will be safe. There has been no incident that I have ever read of (in a reliable publication, rather than online right-wing screeds about rapists dressing up as women) that a transgendered female endangered a woman in a restroom. However, more than 100 transgendered women have been murdered over the past year. There is real danger there, but it's the other way than you pretend. If you ever come up with some data supporting your fear-mongering, I'm sure someone would love to hear it.
Name one Democrat who has said Trump didn't legitimately win the election by 49.5 percent. Democrats have accepted his win, and their loss of the the House and Senate. (He did not win "in a landslide" by any meaning of the word, but by a plurality of the vote, and a solid majority of the Electoral College. In fact, the same Electoral College majority that Joe Biden won along with a plurality of the popular vote -- but against which election Trump, Vance, and dozens of their Congressional sheeple are STILL whining that the election of 2020 was "stollen" (to use Trump's spelling.)
But Democrats expect every elected official to fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. Mr. Trump openly asserts that he's not sure if he has to follow the Constitution, or even obey court orders.
Democrats go to court, not as "petulant losers" but as outraged patriots, when the administration does things that are illegal or unconstitutional and won't back down. So far, those court cases have been won about 65% of the time, usually in rulings BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES, including those on the Supreme Court. Whereas Trump went to court to overturn the 2020 election 61 times, and lost all 61 cases, inlcuding HIS Supreme Court. This is indeed resistance: resistance to lawbreaking by the president and his men.
Logic does not seem your strong point, Hal, my friend. I guess that's what makes you a Republican.
"Pretty far reach, Hal."
Pretty ridiculous opening line, Andy.
"Banning all abortions for all women at all times under all circumstances leads to either forced birth or forced death for women who are septic, ill, or unable to bring a pregnancy to term."
Well, Andy, what percentage of pregnancies fall under those conditions every year? I made no mention of banning all abortions. I simply asked the OP, "Do Democrats accept any limits on abortion?"
"Ensuring that abortion decisions are made rationally BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team..."
You forgot the other person in the mix - the precious life inside the womb, and that's not by accident, is it? There was a time not very long ago when Democrats proudly proclaimed the value of protecting society's most vulnerable. I can't think of anything more vulnerable and defenseless than life inside a womb.
"Yes, a biological male in transition to becoming female should use the women's restroom if it is where she will be safe."
Sure, and let's forget about the real biological females who are made to feel as though they are the bad people in this scenario.
"However, more than 100 transgendered women have been murdered over the past year."
Here's the other side of the coin, and I'll even put in a link to the story (something you couldn't be bothered with):
"Trans Criminals: The Problem We Refuse to Define"
https://www.commentary.org/articles/hannah-meyers/trans-criminals-poor-policy/
"Name one Democrat who has said Trump didn't legitimately win the election..."
My response neither stated nor implied such.
"But Democrats expect every elected official to fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution."
I expect every government official from the local level on up to "fulfill their oath of office to obey the law, uphold the Constitution, and do only what's permitted by the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution", regardless of whether they belong to a political party or not.
"Mr. Trump openly asserts that he's not sure if he has to follow the Constitution, or even obey court orders."
That's because Trump doesn't really know what's in the Constitution, a distinction he probably shares with many members of Congress and the media. For example, no President should have the power to impose tariffs - Article I of the Constitution says that generating revenue is reserved specifically for the House of Representatives. Yet back in FDR's time Congress thought it a good idea to cede some of that power, and it's happened a couple of more times since. To my knowledge it has never been challenged at SCOTUS. Congress should get their collective heads out of their asses and rescind that power from the President.
"Democrats go to court, not as "petulant losers"..."
Uh, yes they do, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. They always have a hissy fit when they don't control some part of the government and try to de-legitimize it. Have you ever noticed that, in the past, Democrat supporters in the media whined about the "undemocratic" Senate and bemoaned the fact that Wyoming had the same number of senators as California?
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2021/02/u-s-senate-representation-is-deeply-undemocratic-and-cannot-be-changed/
https://www.registerguard.com/story/opinion/columns/2018/10/17/complaints-that-senate-is-undemocratic/6082008007/
Or that the Supreme Court needed to be expanded once the majority of the Court turned conservative?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/07/05/democrats-push-for-court-packing-after-controversial-supreme-court-rulings-why-the-proposal-is-likely-doomed/
Probably not. Their only recourse for the time being is litigation. And they hide behind the phrase "pro-democracy" to add some manner of legitimacy.
"So far, those court cases have been won about 65% of the time, usually in rulings BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES, including those on the Supreme Court."
Which goes to show that judges are actually independent, right? And the other 35% have gone in Trump's favor...and it's a good thing we have a judiciary. But I'm still waiting for the "doom and gloom" predictions that Trump will be some fascist/authoritarian. I mean, how many members of the media have been rounded up and put in a gulag? Rachel Maddow stated once that she really feared that if Trump was elected...AFAIK she's still at MSNBC making $25 million a year.
"Whereas Trump went to court to overturn the 2020 election 61 times, and lost all 61 cases, inlcuding HIS Supreme Court."
Do you know the "why" behind Trump's losses in court?
"Logic does not seem your strong point, Hal, my friend. I guess that's what makes you a Republican."
Three points to make here:
1. I am not your friend in any way, shape, manner or form - I simply don't know you well enough.
2. Just because I criticize Democrats does not automatically make me a Republican. Try not to jump to conclusions in the future.
3. There may have been some logic in your arguments, but it temporarily escapes me as to what they would be. Maybe in your next response you can point them out.
In your original comment responding to another, and to which I replied, you asked two questions, both of which I answered. The first, about what limits Democrats accept for abortions, I answered within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power (in a number of states) has chosen to do by not just limiting but criminalizing abortion -- women who have one, medical personnel who provide them, neighbors of friends who "abet" one by driving the woman to a clinic in another state, even residents of other states who "allow" a woman to come to their clinic. Viz., Texas.
The second, I answered from my wealth of knowledge of and lifetime of awareness of the ongoing danger to women, transsexuals, all LGBTQI people, and, in particular, Black and Hispanic drag queens. (I could care less about Commentary's reporting. It's too much like trying to find actual "news" on Fox.) Each spring various reports update the public on how many drag queens have been murdered so far this year, how many bodies of dead prostitutes have been found, etc. Linking the various stories for your benefit is a waste of my time.
In the third instance, you accuse by association, i.e., "Not unlike what the Democrats have been doing since Election Day last year, acting like petulant losers but calling it "resistance", using the courts simply because they lost control of the WH and Congress."
Sorry, but that is a typical response of Republicans (whether you're an enrolled party member or not). Accusing Democrats of "using the courts" rather than, in fact, turning to the courts, as every American has every right to do in order to make a claim of illegal, unconstitutional, or other tortious behavior. Going to court is not an act of petulance; it's an act of last resort when the other branches of government refuse to rein in lawbreaking, or even acknowledge it.
More to the point, though, is that in fact, the Republican leaders of Congress regularly use that same word, "petulant," to disparage Democrats' demands that laws be followed, and hold lie-filled press conferences when it's pointed out in or out of Congress that the most petulant, childish, whiny abuser of the court system of all time -- with more than 4,000 cases brought against him or brought by him against others during his career -- is their party head, Mr. Trump.
I was being polite (it's an old rhetorical usage) by calling you "my friend"; kind of what Congresspeople used to say about "my friend across the aisle" when referring to their bitterest opponent. But I won't bother with that now.
I don't know or care whether or not you're a Republican; member or not, you parrot the party's line.
I'm sure you can find (and follow) the logic of my earlier reply, if you try.
However, this is my last response; I don't like going down rabbit holes.
"The first, about what limits Democrats accept for abortions, I answered within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power..."
But you did not answer what limits Democrats would accept, which was the original question, not "within a context of contrasting what the party currently in power (in a number of states) has chosen to do..."
"The second, I answered from my wealth of knowledge of and lifetime of awareness of the ongoing danger...Linking the various stories for your benefit is a waste of my time."
So, you have a "wealth of knowledge" but are essentially too lazy to provide even one link...got it.
"Sorry, but that is a typical response of Republicans (whether you're an enrolled party member or not)."
Sorry, but that is the typical response from people who assume too much.
"More to the point, though, is that in fact, the Republican leaders of Congress regularly use that same word, "petulant," to disparage Democrats' demands..."
I use the same word ("petulant") to describe some of Trump's actions.
"I was being polite (it's an old rhetorical usage) by calling you "my friend";"
I actually don't believe you were trying to be "polite", but I won't belabor the point.
"I don't know or care whether or not you're a Republican; member or not, you parrot the party's line."
Yet you labeled me as such, again making assumptions, perhaps from your "wealth of knowledge".
I guess you didn't want to tackle the "life in the womb" aspect of your "BY THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THEM -- the pregnant woman and her medical team..." comment. Not surprised.
"However, this is my last response; I don't like going down rabbit holes."
That's entirely your call.
Thank you for this clear description of what has happened in North Carolina. It has been just another one of those unfair and unjust events that keeps me up at night. Election shenanigans are the worst of these events. When we lose the rule of law we lose everything - and elections are part of that. This country is just fighting for its life at this point. Every single day.
North Carolina is 1% less embarrassed tonight. Phew!
I tried congratulating the justice but it was after hours. I guess the government can’t afford voicemail. I tried emailing, maybe that second glass of wine wasn’t helping, BUT another victory over these maga morons. I’m over the moon. There will be up and down days but I am so hopeful. These victories inspire me. And yes, I’ll drag any maga along with me who wants to see the light. A long dark tunnel but I see a flickering glimmer at the end. We can do this!
So pleased for the good people down there.
Rare reporting. I congratulate you.
I'm assuming Republicans will continue to try to find ways to expand the tactic of election denialism: but they may be coming up against their limit. It just might be that the tactic really only works as a one-off, when they concentrate their efforts on a single crude but charismatic national figure.
Even that requires an immense apparatus and an elaborate long-term strategy. It can't work without the coordinated support of elements in Congress, the DOJ, and the Pentagon plus a massive and elaborate propaganda machine: Fox, Twitter, Newsmax, OAN, RT, Dinesh D'Souza, an infinity of podcasters, a thousand monkeys with keyboards (or at any rate a thousand Russian trolls), the Oklahoma Superintendent of Education, et al.
When all those elements are combined with the singular goal of creating an elaborate narrative of a single stolen election, it is, I suppose, possible to create a cult following and millions of True Believers.
But trotting it out on a more granular level, office by office, state by state, again and again and again---not so easy to pull that off. It begins to get old fast. There's a real risk the Republicans will overplay their hand. Even Oklahoma schoolchildren might start asking questions.
The safer bet for Republicans: to continue as they've begun: eroding voting rights, making it ever more difficult for targeted constituencies to vote, creating a sense of threat and vulnerability among those constituencies. Old school stuff. It worked in the American South for generations.
"Republican Concedes!" That should have been the headline everywhere.
Hi, is there a reason why the audio option doesn’t work on this article, and certain other ones?
I love the audio versions. I can play solitaire while I listen and learn. But the words are so rich when you have to read them. I hear a different voice than the AI (not A1) regenerated voice. I love how Heather cox Richardson reads her essays, sometimes her assistant (human? AI?) his voice is so perfect. I hope it is her husband helping out in their Maine country house - probably not when you get 10’s, 100’s of thousands of responses to your work. I bet she has a paid assistant :). Whatever, I agree, I wish all articles had an audio “reader”. Just think how many visually impaired respondents you could assist. And soon, our AI friends will let us snuggle under their arms while we are read to sleep. I would buy that if I could afford it.
I also like when authors read their work - Heather Cox Richardson does a nice job as does Thomas Zimmer, another great writer on democracy. But in the Substack app at least, every article has an audio button for at least an automated voice - yet for some of the Contrarian articles, it is grayed out without explanation. That’s what I’m asking about.
You are gradually getting there, buddy. Final step, vote Blue !
Sanity will not be restored until the obvious partisans on the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court are removed in North Carolina. Their rulings were shameful perversions of the rule of law. They are not worthy of being called judges.
Like others, I was shocked to read that the author would probably have voted for this guy. Perhaps now that Mr. Griffin has exposed his total lack of character and judicial temperament by coming out as a virulent, partisan hypocrite who now gets to return to his elected position on the NC Court of Appeals, the author will rethink his probable support for Griffin's next election campaign.
But this is not sanity. This is authority finally listened to (while the state GOP licks its wounds and tries figuring out new unethical, illegal, and revolting ways to subvert the law.
The only reason both the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court voted as they did was because they are controlled by Republicans. They will continue to cement their reputation as the most corrupt state courts in the United States as long as they insist their party hacks in the legislature have the right to choose their own voters (by severe, racially biased gerrymandering) and eliminate the rights of non-favored voters (read: Black, Hispanic, elderly, student-age) to vote or even register.
No, Mr. Richer, this is not sanity. It is insane that it took six months of insanity to be brought to an end. But I wonder, when you look at the other judges on the Court of Appeals -- Griffin's colleagues -- and at his would-be colleagues on the State Supreme Court -- his five Republican allies -- how in the world can you hold your head up as a fellow at a prestigious Harvard school and the very strangely titled "State Democracy Defenders"?
Your co-partisans in the NC legislature have spent the past 15 years doing every single thing they could to DESTROY democracy (and Democracy) in our state. Mr. Griffin has been part of that movement. They have attempted to restrict the governor's powers despite the Constitution; tried to give authority over election boards to the state Commissioner of Commerce (?), the highest elected Republican on the Council of State, and redrawn racially gerrymandered district lines "with surgical precision."
I really wonder how you reconcile those GOP activities with "defending democracy."
I would have appreciated a paragraph explaining more of what the debate was about. It was hinted about but not sufficiently explained for me.
Essentially the Republican candidate was attempting to get thousands of ballots invalidated because he lost by I think less than a thousand votes. It should never have gotten that far in the court system.