Biden nominee equated 'proof of citizenship' with 'voter suppression,' likened felon voting ban to slavery

One of President Biden's judicial nominees reportedly disparaged various voting restrictions in the United States, including by comparing slavery to the ban on felons voting and "proof of citizenship" to "voter suppression."

"When you add laws that prohibit people with a criminal conviction from voting, it’s practically the same system as during slavery – Black people who have lost their freedom and cannot vote," attorney Nancy Gbana Abudu said in a post for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

"And without access to the ballot, a victim of the system cannot elect the very officials pulling the levers to hire the police, determine which cases are prosecuted and what sentences are imposed."

Those comments and others were unearthed by the Daily Wire after the White House announced it was nominating Abudu to serve as an appellate judge.

Abudu currently works at the left-wing SPLC and previously served as senior staff counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). While at the ACLU, she told The Post and Courier that "95 percent of my work is in voting rights."

A few questions for the Senate confirmation hearing...

"When you, Ms. Abudu, onboarded at the SPLC in 2019, the SPLC had just been sued by Maajid Nawaz's Quilliam Foundation and settled for nearly 4 million dollars. What institutional review and constraints did you institute at SPLC to ensure such deliberate character assassination and business interference never. happens. again?"
"Nawaz correctly labels the SPLC as part of the "Regressive Left". What have you accomplished at the SPLC to abolish the SPLC's policies that led to earning this label to ensure that this never. happens. again.?"
"In the year that you joined SPLC, both Heidi Beirich, the head of SPLC's "Intelligence Project", who had false accused Nawaz of wanting all mosques surveilled, placed the Quilliam Foundation on her Hatewatch blog, and libeled him by false accusing him that "his opinion is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.", and SPLC co-founder Morris Dees -- twice investigated for “inappropriate conduct” -- left SPLC. In fact, Dees was fired. The co-founder of SPLC was fired! What have you done, Mz. Abudu, to ensure that there was a complete house-cleaning at SPLC and what personnel policies did you propose that ensured this never. happens. again.?"
Dees was accused by one set of SPLC employees of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. A second set of SPLC employees went further, and revealed that SPLC leadership had been “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” Again, what actions did you take to stop this deeply embedded, institutionalized #MeToo, racist, assault culture at SPLC to makes sure this never. happens. again.?"
"Why didn't you resign SPLC once you became aware of this intolerable regime of racial hatred and continual sexual harassment at SPLC? You could have led the dismantling of SPLC, instead here you are begging for a job. Isn't it true that you are simply seeking this bench appointment -- which you are obviously not qualified for -- simply to escape that poisonous atmosphere at SPLC which you have helped foster these past 3 years?"

And so on and so on. Punch down!

Thank you for referencing that article simpson96. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Biden nominee equated 'proof of citizenship' with 'voter suppression,' likened felon voting ban to slavery [??? emphasis added]"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Whatever the post-FDR era law schools are teaching their students, they're evidently skipping over a lot of constitutional history.

First, concerning how prisoners can be treated, the 13th Amendment authorizes slavery to be used as punishment for duly convicted criminals.

Excerpted from the 13th Amendment:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted [emphasis added], shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Regarding the politically correct, “inalienable” right of criminals to vote, patriots are reminded that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment recognizes the power of the states to disenfranchise criminals.

Excerpted from the 14th Amendment;

"14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [emphases added] in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Corrections, insights welcome.

The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments manufacturing crises to oppress everybody under their boots...

Consider that the states effectively have "veto power" over continued unpopular, unconstitutional actions of the feds.

More specifically, all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.

Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.

Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17A), little or no discussion required imo.

In fact, I challenge the states to ram the repeal amendment for 16&17A through the ratification process faster than Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House. /semi-sarc

Again, insights welcome.

OK, time for a little sarcasm.

You can tell a lawyer with no moral center by how they will argue any point you give them. In this case, there is a legal point to why Democrats should not have to identify themselves with I.D. to vote. It is the 5th Amendment. A person who wants to commit voter fraud, if asked for ID and they furnished it would be in essence providing evidence against themself. They should just be able to say no I won't identify myself, you can take me to jail, if you like before I commit a crime, but you will then have no objective evidence that I have committed a crime. To many attorney's and Democrats this would make perfect sense.

Now as to felons being banned from voting. Let us look at the recent Trump female Supreme Court judge. She has previously stated that denying “nonviolent” felons after they have paid their debt to society the right to own firearms is abridging their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. Well denying a felon who has been released from jail the right to vote is only a small distance down that same slippery slope. In fact we all have seen the stories where a certain governor wanted to pardon all released felons so that they could vote and there are other places that want to allow felons still in jail the right to vote in local elections.

(/sarcasm)

This position by the Democrats is not as far fetched as it sounds on first blush. Democrats are great at compartmentalizing things if it helps them get elected. They don't really care about the underlying damage they cause to society as long as they get and retain political power.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.