When I described the Democrats’ reaction to the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the party’s redrawn congressional map on Friday as apoplectic, I meant it. Still seething over the ruling on Saturday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries convened a conference call with Democratic lawmakers from the state to discuss possible ways to reinstate their gerrymandered map. Three participants on the call and two others who were briefed on it spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity.
The sources told the Times that one proposal under consideration involved defying the Court’s ruling and pressing ahead with the newly drawn map.
Another option reportedly discussed on the call was replacing the entire state Supreme Court. Under this brazen plan, the current justices would be pressured into retirement, clearing the way for Virginia’s General Assembly to appoint an entirely new bench that would, presumably, approve the new map.
The sources said this option would require the General Assembly to lower the mandatory retirement age for Virginia Supreme Court justices from 75 to 54, which happens to be the age of the youngest current justice. According to the Times, “Virginia judges are appointed by the General Assembly, where Democrats hold majorities in both chambers and could then fill vacancies on the court with sympathetic Democratic lawyers.”
That being said, it’s unclear if all Democrats would support such an aggressive initiative. Former Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA) told the Times this move would be “just a bridge too far” and “could backfire” on the party.
Although he understands Democrats feel the “need to fight back and not just be victims of unparalleled aggression,” he warned, “We do have to keep our credibility. We have to do things that pass the legitimacy test.”
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), on the other hand, supports taking whatever action is necessary to use the new map — “including replacing the state’s Supreme Court justices.” He said:
Everyone has got to have a strong stomach right now; this is a complete disaster waiting to happen if people are timid. We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts all together. We know based on that, Republicans would explore every single option possible to move this forward.
The Times calls this proposal an “unusual gambit.” Most of us call it something else entirely.
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley weighed in on this radical plan in a Fox News op-ed titled, “Angry Left plots to purge Virginia’s high court.”
He reported that the proposal originated from Michigan State law professor Quinn Yeargain:
Professor Yeargain declared on Substack that there is “a simple – and lawful – solution: Send the entire court into early retirement.” Under this plan, Virginia Democrats would adopt an absurdly low age for retirement in a gut-and-pack scheme: Yeargain suggested that they could set “the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.”The current retirement age is 73.Yeargain dismisses that number as “arbitrary” and says that the Democrats need only to “Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices – the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion – and make it take effect immediately.”
Turley noted that in its opinion, the Virginia Supreme Court characterized the state’s position as “a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail.”
“The response of Yeargain and Democratic activists,” he wrote, “is now to suggest just shooting the dog and adopting a type of politically modified puppy bred to serve.”
Obviously, there is no way of knowing whether Democrats will try to carry out this shameless scheme. But if they do, few Americans will likely be surprised. Because since the day President Donald Trump launched his first campaign, they stopped playing by the rules.
Politics has always been a rough-and-tumble enterprise. It is inherently messy, fiercely competitive, and at times, ruthless. Yet for most of American history, even bitter political rivals generally operated within recognizable boundaries, guided by at least some shared commitment to institutional norms, basic civility, and a measure of fair play.
The Democrats’ increasing willingness to discard long-standing rules of conduct, delegitimize institutions, and pursue power at virtually any cost represents something far more corrosive.
Democrats do not merely bend the rules — they bulldoze them in pursuit of political advantage.
We really need to ask the question: Can Democrats still be regarded as a serious political party? Or have they drifted so far from democratic norms that they increasingly resemble a criminal enterprise?
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner and Legal Insurrection. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY