The Arguments in Jefferson Griffin v. Allison Riggs before the Ct of Appeals

 

Jefferson Griffin.
He's had that pat of butter in his mouth
for months.

Yesterday before a 3-judge panel of Court of Appeals judges -- two Republicans and one Democrat -- sore-loser Jefferson Griffin's attorney argued that "the right to vote is not absolute,” especially when a margin of 700-odd votes separate his client from his stubborn goal. Griffin's side came up with the wild theory that over 66,000 voters should have their rights axxed to suit the needs of ambition. Jefferson Griffin, acting wildly outside the law of logic and fairness, evidently thinks his fellow Republicans at the highest echelons of the North Carolina judiciary will save his sorry ass out of pure and utter partisan loyalty.

Raymond Bennett, the attorney representing Allison Riggs, boiled the defense down to essentials: “For more than 200 years, elections have proceeded in this country under a principle so basic that it is known on every elementary school playground: You cannot change the rules after the game has been played,” he said. “If you lose, you accept defeat graciously.”

Griffin won't, and he's evidently depending on tribal allegiances to further corrupt the very structure of justice in North Carolina.

Hattip to Democracy Docket for the direct quotes.