Summary

The North Carolina Supreme Court, in a 5-1 Republican-led decision, blocked certification of Democratic Justice Allison Riggs as the winner of a state Supreme Court race.

Riggs leads Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes after recounts, but Griffin claims 60,000 ballots were illegally cast and seeks to have them invalidated.

The court will now hear Griffin’s challenge, with briefs due by January 24.

Democrats criticized the move as partisan, while the lone Democratic justice dissented, arguing there is no basis to delay certification or disrupt the election process.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      But half the people want this. They don’t care about rules and decorum. All they care about is their side winning.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        No, 1/3rd of eligible voters wanted this. Most people didnt give a fuck to show up.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean it ended with France becoming a democracy so… Yeah. A lot of nonsense happened, but modern France exists as a result of the French revolution.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          You’re skipping over the time immediately following the French Revolution… You know, when it became a dictatorship?

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I included that in the “nonsense” part. A lot of bad followed the French revolution, but a lot of good did too and the result was a much more free France even during the Bourbon Restoration.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah after going back and forth for 80 years. Many of which were incredibly bloody.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Oh you just care about French peasants? God forbid you check out any other country and what they did instead. It must be fucking violence and war with you people.

              • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                I’m fairly confident France was by far one of the nicer more progressive places to live, I don’t think your argument improves if you talk about a russian serf. Britain might be a good example, but Britain absolutely liberalized because they were afraid of the same violence - the threat becomes a lot more real when your neighboring royalty lost their heads.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Sure, except from what I’ve read most liberalization we care about didn’t happen until the 20th century, at least 50 years after the 1848 uprisings, and at least 100 years after the French Revolution. That speaks to a certain lack of urgency. But no, there were commoners all over Europe, and the world. The French were not special. We even have modern examples of getting out from under dictatorships and oligarchies. They mostly involve having so many people in the street that it’s impossible to stop them. I can count the number of modern armed rebellions that worked on one hand, and they’re a puppet of Turkey now.

                  The only thing a French style revolution is going to bring us is battles with no prisoners, political inquisitors committing mass murder, and foreign troops trying to maintain a semblance of order near Mexico and Canada to contain the violence and possibly secure our nuclear warheads. Then people are going to be tired of all that and they’ll run to the nearest strongman. In the best case scenario those guys will make an alliance and actually end the fighting. In the worst case scenario we balkanize like Afghanistan and then everyone supports a theocracy because at least most of us are Christian and it’s unifying. Except it’s the worst most fundamentalist version because it’s led by a strongman type too.

                  They say politics and economics are unique sciences because you can’t run experiments properly. But we can absolutely dissect history and figure out what to avoid.

                  • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    ok, but these conversations do absolutely nothing but flourish your creative writing skills. I have no clue what you and @[email protected] are talking about but vague references with no real data or links to follow along or personally interpret.

                    Sure, except from what I’ve read most liberalization we care about didn’t happen until the 20th century, at least 50 years after the 1848 uprisings, and at least 100 years after the French Revolution.

                    What did you read?!?!

                    We even have modern examples of getting out from under dictatorships and oligarchies.

                    Why did you not even give one example!?!


                    The main problem is people just say shit to say shit. Almost everyday I’m actually having to look up multiple tabs of shit from comments because “everyone knows the truth” (or at least so emotionally invested in their own truth they won’t even consider they might be wrong or read something false).

                    And now to follow along with both of you I have to abstractly search using websites that are just fucking abysmal to actually use the search function on, instead of just one little tiny link pointing me to a passage or reference. It just makes me want to tune out the conversation because there’s already too much shit I have to learn and do everyday. I WANT this information though, I think history is important but it just looks like two people arguing over interpretations of data that we have no clue of.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              2 days ago

              Oh good, thank you for your sacrifice.

              Wait? You want me to live in a civil war hellhole too? Fuck no, fuck you. There are peaceful ways to do this.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  After 80 years of switching back and forth between Republics and Monarchies. With mob violence, civil wars, and brutal crackdowns. Which mostly killed commoners, not nobles. It wasn’t until 1870 that they stabilized as a Republic, because they lost a war to the Germans.

                  We could do that or we could follow the example of the many countries who defended their rights or claimed them by filling the streets with people.

                  I’m not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

                  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    We could do that or we could follow the example of the many countries who defended their rights or claimed them by filling the streets with people.

                    Filling the streets with people, on its own, doesn’t do jack shit. It’s an implied threat and you need to be willing to follow up on it with action or you’re not getting anywhere. Also what do you intend to do when/if the government shoots the people filling the streets? Of course peaceful change is the best option, but it doesn’t always, or even most of the time, work, and in that case you have no option except to capitulate or resort to violence.

                  • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Worse, I believe you have a comprehension problem.

                    Multiple great wins for their citizens, with universal healthcare, a great aerospace lineage, reliable and low cost energy to help their industries grow, low to no cost higher education. A robust, healthy farm industry, high regard for planetary health among citizens, and a very reasonable work-life balance.

                    All they had to do was demand it. You’re too chickenshit to even dream about it. Pathetic.