Biden judicial nominee equated felon voting ban to ‘slavery,’ held extreme views on ‘voter suppression’


Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


Like virtually every other nominee chosen by President Joe Biden, Georgia attorney Nancy Gbana Abudu appears to be a radical.

Strike One: Since 2019, Abudu has served as the deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

As in the same discredited, radical SPLC that purports to objectively and neutrally arbitrate what constitutes “hate speech” and “extremism,” but which in reality  is known for smearing and trying to silence anyone who dissents against far-left orthodoxy.

In fact, some say that in recent years, the SPLC has itself become a hate group.

Strike Two: In an article written for the SPLC in the summer of 2020, Abudu equated bans that prohibit convicted criminals from voting to slavery. While there are legitimate arguments against these bans, this doesn’t appear to be one of them.

In the same piece, she even called for allowing criminals who are incarcerated to be granted “access to the polls.”

In another piece, this one written last March, she praised herself for having recently “testified against a bill that would require people to include a photocopy of their ID with their absentee ballot application.”

And in her latest piece, published in August, Abudu promoted the so-called John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4).

According to National Review, this controversial bill would deprive the Supreme Court of certain election-related powers.

“When a lower court improperly strikes down a democratically enacted voting law passed by the legislature and governor elected by a majority of a state’s people, the law would put a thumb on the scales against the Court reinstating the law,” according to NRO.

Thus, as an example, the bill would allow “a rogue lower court to simply invent new rules to stuff the ballot box with flagrantly illegal votes, and the Supreme Court [would be] barred from doing anything about it.”

Strike Three: In an interview 11 years ago with The Post and Courier, a paper out of Charleston, South Carolina, Abudu equated “proof of citizenship” and “photo ID” with so-called “voter suppression.”

She said as much while describing her then-job duties as senior staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s southern regional office in Atlanta.

“I would say 95 percent of my work is in voting rights, and it runs the gamut. … Obviously, we do a lot when it comes to voter suppression, which includes five priority areas: photo ID, proof of citizenship, restrictions we see when it comes to registration … early voting as well as absentee voting and the restrictions we see when it comes to criminal convictions. We also do a lot with student voting,” she said.

Critics say that combined, these strikes paint the picture of a highly partisan political actor who’s not an appropriate nominee for a role on a federal court.

The agenda does indeed seem clear. The president has himself repeatedly railed against the commonsense voter reform measures that have been instituted by Republican governors with the support of a majority their constituents.

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in March found that 75 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. A more recent poll conducted in August by the Honest Elections Project found an even higher 81 percent of voters support them, as reported by The Hill.

Yet the elimination of voter ID laws, in addition to other commonsense election reform measures, remains a top goal of the entire Democrat Party …

Vivek Saxena
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)






Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *