US Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Stay Of Virginia Supreme Court Redistricting Ruling
When you are libs and you’ve lost even KBJ, you know your legal arguments sucked big league.
How bad was the attempt by supporters of the Virginia redistricting referendum to get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Virginia Supreme Court – which ruled that the referendum violated the Virginia Constitution?
So bad that not even KBJ went along. When you are libs and you’ve lost even KBJ, you know your legal arguments sucked big league.
The ruling was unanimous with no dissents:
“The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
So when will the attorneys who brought this frivolous application be disbarred, like happened to Republican lawyers who lost the 2020 election cases?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, they did misspell their own state, then followed that up by submitting it back to the VSSC instead of SCOTUS. It’s like they thought this would be a fundraising move and weren’t trying (then proceeded to embarrass themselves).
Apparently the corruptive effect of the learing center has spread throughout the democrat body politic.
The appeal they submitted to SCOTUS was addressed to the VSSC. That idiot AG didn’t even know what his own appeal said. Everyone in that office whose fingerprints were on the entire process needs to be termed but the legislature and Gov were all in so nothing will happen. They would have to be disciplined by Federal and complaints made by the Feds. I doubt that will happen either. Should be, though not for the appeal but for how incompetent it was.
No, they didn’t.
No, it wasn’t.
The 200+ page brief had practically no substance to it, but they didn’t make such a fundamental error on the cover page!
It was correctly titled “In the Supreme Court of the United States”, [list of applicants], [list of respondents], “On Emergency Application to the Supreme Court of Virginia”. That is exactly as it should have been. If their brief had to be judged based entirely on the cover page, they would have got full marks. It’s what was inside that didn’t make any sense.
And perhaps some mandatory spellcheck lessons? Idiots
Maybe they also don’t have an edit button!
^^^This^^^
“So when will the attorneys who brought this frivolous application be disbarred, like happened to Republican lawyers who lost the 2020 election cases?”
Never. It’s (D)ifferent when they do it.
Who’s responsible for that, the ABA? Because then that question answers itself.
Democrats can appeal to that idiotic ‘international law’ they keep spewing about.
“The ruling was unanimous with no dissent”
When you’ve lost Ketanji Brown Jackson, you’ve lost the war
Wow. I was expecting perhaps a 6-3 or even a 8-1 decision not to hear it.
At this point I would expect the next step for the state of Virginia is to flatly ignore the Virginia Supreme Court ruling.
That would be the demorat thing to do.
If not a legal ruling, the SC should at least award some sort of homely award to commie Spamburger.
I predicted unanimous but I’m no legal eagle. The actions by the AG’s office was so incompetent including the misspellings and wrong address to SCOTUS and the fact SCOTUS was not getting involved in a state Constitutional ruling that followed long standing state laws it was hard to see them stepping on the VSSC.
The brief to SCOTUS was properly addressed, and as far as I know it contains no misspellings. I haven’t proofread the whole thing myself, but there was nothing that stood out.
They literally can’t. In what way would they ignore it? Hold the election with districts that don’t legally exist?! That wouldn’t be an election, and would have no effect. The members “elected” by such a process would not be members, and if the Rs otherwise retain the house they would not be seated.
But it wouldn’t get that far, because candidates who were contesting the lawful districts would immediately sue because the elections for those districts was not being held, and the court would order the various boards of elections to hold those elections, on pain of being arrested for contempt.
They literally can’t.
Here again, Milhouse, you confuse legal authority with actual ability.
They most certainly can. And they will if they think they can get away with it.
What you’re talking about is what would happen in an otherwise proper legal and political system. If the Rs do not hold the house, though, what makes you think the Dems couldn’t seat the illegally elected reps? Because we have NOT held these folks to account very often they get more and more bold in their defiance of the law and the Constitution.
I think your argument is fairly solid, but it certainly doesn’t mean “can’t“.
No, I don’t. An election is a legal process, and it can only happen legally. If it’s held illegally it’s not an election at all.
If it were somehow held and the Ds otherwise take the house then sure, they’ll seat these “winners”. But it can’t even be held, because the candidates for the real districts will immediately go to court because no real election is being held, and will get immediate orders to hold one, backed up by the threat of contempt and marshals to enforce it.
I’m surprised KBJ didn’t write a dissent out of habit,
She is still busy trying to figure out what a woman is…
Maybe KBJ’s dissent was ignored because she “Virgnia” was a separate state?
Or AOC told her it was under the equator.
The string “Virgnia” appears only on page 85, in an appendix. It does not appear anywhere in the brief itself.
Isn’t an appendix part of the document? If not why even produce one. The brief is just a component of the filing.
The appendix is the record that accompanies the brief. It’s copies of all the previous actions in the various state courts. Therefore it has to reproduce them as they were, including typos. There was no way to correct it in this submission. But nowhere in this brief was it misspelled in that way.
For the benefit of some thicker than usual readers: In the context of this brief, that spelling was correct, because that is indeed how it appeared in the document that was being attached.
“ So bad that not even KBJ went along.”
😂😂😂😂😂
*inhale* *wheeze*
😂😂😂😂😂
OMG… When you’ve lost the most incompetent justice in at least 100 years (if ever) how poor was your legal theory?
Probably as bad as your spelling!
The original legal theory was fine. The theory on which they appealed to SCOTUS was … wishful .
Virginia’s AG needs the John Eastman treatment. Make them play by their own rules
If they made a habit of rehearing state Supreme Court rulings their workload would explode beyond all sanity.
They opened a can of worms they wish they never thought of.
Marxist’s One Stage Thinking
You don’t get disbarred merely for filing an application without merit.
The J6 lawyers were disbarred for supposedly being involved in a “coup” to “overthrow the lawful government of the united states”, or some such nonsense. Of course no such thing happened, but that was the charge. Not just filing a meritless brief.
And that would be the charge here, too. They obviously broke the law (the Virginia Constitution) with the referendum, the Virginia Supreme Court told them so, and they want to override the VA Supreme Court.
I know it’s a legal process and they’re allowed to do that. And, therefore, the charges would have the same merit as those against the J6er lawyers. But that’s exactly the point. Make them live by their own rules.
No, having and defending a state referendum — especially one that was NOT obviously invalid until the court said it was — can’t possibly be twisted into an attempt to “overthrow the US government”. It doesn’t even affect the US government, or any government.
No J6 lawyer was disbarred simply for filing a meritless brief. Lawyers were (wrongly) disbarred for knowingly encouraging a client to break they law, by giving the client legal advice that they “knew or should have known” was wrong, such as Eastman’s theory that the VP can reject electors’ votes.
To summarize:
“We demand you grant the stay: even though the state constitution clearly states that redistricting must be done by two separate legislative sessions separated by an election, we blatantly disregarded that. The VA court ‘confused’ the meaning of state and federal elections — and that created a dire emergency that threatens our control of Congress this November. So bad that we were forced to bypass the Appellate Courts and come directly to you.”
Give KJB some credit.
It’s not the redistricting that must be done over two separate sessions. It’s the referendum.
The VA Supreme Court didn’t address the legality of the redistricting map, but the legality of the referendum that allowed a one-time suspension of the constitutional rules for redistricting.
And I still have problems with the “Well, we’re going to make an exception to the rule.” It’s a violation of a fundamental precept of the rule of law.
They didn’t blatantly disregard that. The referendum (to amend the constitution, not to redistrict) was passed at two sessions, and they were separated by an election, if you take “election” to mean Election Day, not the whole season.
And I guarantee you that had the parties been reversed at least half of the commenters here on LI would be insisting that it’s absolutely clear that that is what “election” means, and that anyone who says it means a whole season is a corrupt Democrat deliberately perverting the constitution’s plain text for partisan advantage. I guarantee it.
The truth is that it’s a valid question and both ways of looking at it are equally valid. There’s nothing blatant about it. Until the VA supreme court decided the matter there was no one valid answer, and even now it’s only been answered for VA. An identical clause in another state might well mean the opposite.
Leave a Comment