Democrats Considering Radical Plan to Replace Virginia Supreme Court Justices
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.
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.”
NYT: A Private Call Reveals Democrats’ Desperation Over Tossing of Map
Democrats are struggling to respond to a major redistricting setback in Virginia, with some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea for trying to restore a congressional map voided…
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) May 10, 2026
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.
NYT: Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) said in an interview that he supported doing whatever was necessary to preserve the map voters approved in last month’s referendum — including replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices.
Subramanyam: “We have Republican states ignoring… https://t.co/NGQ2lQkG51 pic.twitter.com/weN4U4Hu9a
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) May 10, 2026
The Times calls this proposal an “unusual gambit.” Most of us call it something else entirely.
🚨🚨🚨
The Virginia Supreme Court rightly struck down Democrats’ illegal power grab that clearly violated the Virginia Constitution.
But now Democrats are threatening to PACK THE COURT with partisan liberals to ram through their rigged map anyways.
Just more proof that… https://t.co/NceFaU9WJ7
— Virginia GOP (@VA_GOP) May 10, 2026
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.”
The gut-and-pack scheme is brutally cynical. The Virginia Supreme Court described the earlier gambit as “a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail.” Now, Democrats would just shoot the dog and adopt a politically modified dog bred to serve. https://t.co/aoUqaqNj7H
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 10, 2026
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.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Democratic Party has been a criminal enterprise for a very long time. When it became a criminal enterprise is the pertinent question.
Side note: I like how there is a foreigner with a funny sounding name wanting to undo an American institution. I wonder when actual Americans will understand the need to stop letting foreigners ruin their nation.
Founded in 1828 as a criminal enterprise.
“I like how there is a foreigner with a funny sounding name wanting to undo an American institution.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
He is not a foreigner. He is an American citizen, just like you, and your name sounds just as funny to him as his does to you.
No. He’s a foreigner. And you’re EXACTLY the type of American I’m talking about who keeps opening America’s doors fo these sorry ass foreigners.
The constitution says he’s just as American as you. Calling him a foreigner makes you not only a fucking racist bigot, but also a rebel against the constitution, which makes him more American than you.
What makes him more foreign than Trump? Do you call Trump a foreigner with a funny name too?! Why not? How is he more American than this guy?
What about Rubio, Cruz, and Patel? Scalia and Alito? You probably do call them all foreigners with funny names.
Known racist that you responded to.
He’s a foreigner and he acts like a foreigner, coming onto our country and wanting to change it to be less American.
Don’t correct me.
He has not “come into our country”. He’s from here. Just like Donald Trump. And you are a lot less American than he is. Racism is not an American value.
Well yes he is a first generation American… but the point being made is there sure seems to be a lot of immigrants and their children who have come to this country to change it to what they fled from… who seem to hate this country… Omar comes to mind… not to mention the ones… elected officials…and there are several who openly state they are for their country of origin first and always over Americans and America. And they sure find a soft landing in the Democrat party which also openly hates America and Americans. Gee… why do the Democrats want to flood our country and have open borders… what a mystery
No, he is not a first-generation American, he is second-generation. Just like Trump. He didn’t come from anywhere; he’s from here. And his parents certainly didn’t come here to change anything.
I looked him up to see what his positions were and found out he voted to impeach … Gnome. AI LOLOL The name came from a derogatory comment the congressman made and AI picked it up as a legit name.
Homeland Security Secretary Noem
“The Constitution is unconstitutional!”
That is essentially what the Warren Court did in 1962, when it tossed senate apportionment in the states via the one man, one vote ruling in Baker v Carr. Vote was 6-2. Up until then, state senates were apportioned by area (mostly counties), similar to how the US apportions the US senate giving equal representation to each state regardless of population. State houses were apportioned by population like the US House of Representatives. Cheers –
Bulldust. The decision was 100% correct. The constitution does not allow states to destroy democracy by giving unequal districts equal representation, i.e. giving people in some districts more power than those in other districts.
Counties are creations of the state. They are merely administrative subdivisions of the state, which the state creates, alters, and abolishes as it sees fit. So if you want to elect your upper house by county, that’s fine but you must ensure that each county has about the same population. You can’t just deliberately draw a small county with people that you like, and a large county with people that you don’t like, and then give them each a representative. That is not a republican form of government.
I’d be more inclined to unreservedly support that argument if the underlying doctrine, non dilution of political power aka one man/one vote, was applied to Congressional Districts. There are adjacent CD within several States whose number of Citizens vary wildly, 3 to 1 isn’t unusual. Since only Citizens may vote for Federal offices only Citizens posses political power in that context and creating CD with such dramatically different # of Citizens definitely dilutes the political power of each vote within some CD while dramatically increasing it in other CD.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that districts within a state should have similar number of eligible voters (excluding not only aliens but also minors and disenfranchised felons, lunatics, etc.).
But the counter-argument is that the constitution explicitly says that states are entitled to representation for their entire population, including those ineligible to vote, implying that its representative represent that entire population, and therefore that each representative represents the entire population of his district.
But however one comes out on that argument, there can be no question that districts must have approximately equal numbers of whoever it is that we’re counting. You can’t copy the Rotten Boroughs that used to exist in the UK, and say that a city of 10 million gets one representative and so does a hamlet of 100 people.
And you can’t rely on the US senate, because the USA is a federation of states, but states are not federations of counties. The USA can’t redraw state boundaries to make them equal in population.
Milhouse,
Rotten Boroughs are exactly what we have now with CD drawn without any relationship to number of voters. There.are CD in TX and CA with less than 100K US Citizens next to CD with 350K/400K US Citizens. By any rational basis that is dilution and it’s done deliberately. FWIW Rotten Burroughs were defined not by lack of raw population but by scant number of people who held a vote. I seem to recall the limitation was property ownership generating an income over x and/or a professional of some sort with an income over £100…at least in early 1800s.
IOW then, as now the districts held vastly different numbers of eligible voters regardless of raw population….it wasn’t as if the ordinary farm laborers, mill workers or factory worker had an income over the qualifying threshold.
IMO Congress (or the Judiciary since they’ve previously stuck their nose into the question) could easily add a requirement of +/- 10% in number of US Citizens for each CD drawn within each State after reapportionment. Do that plus put greater emphasis on compactness, adherence to political boundaries and natural boundaries and much of the potential for shenanigans in redistricting are removed or mitigated.
No, Chief, the infamous rotten boroughs were not the result of a limited franchise. That was also a problem, but the rotten boroughs were constituencies that were tiny, and yet had the same representation as huge cities. That was because the map had been drawn centuries earlier and had never changed, while populations moved around. Two towns that had originally been of roughly the same size would have one member each, but one of them had shrunk to a village and the other had grown to a metropolis, and yet they still each had one member. Now add the limited franchise on top of that, and you had boroughs where you could literally pay a majority of voters, or even all of them, to vote for you, whereas in the cities even a limited franchise could amount to several thousand voters, too many to buy them all.
That’s why the US constitution requires the house of representatives to be reapportioned every decade. They didn’t want to repeat that error.
And that’s what the supreme court struck down in 1962, except it was even worse than that, because it was deliberately designed to minimize the impact of black people’s votes and maximize white people’s, whereas the old rotten boroughs were simply the result of centuries-old lack of maintenance.
Milhouse,
No, The rotten boroughs had small numbers of eligible voters. How/why that was so is immaterial to question at hand; the deliberate dilution of political power from a ‘one man one vote standpoint.
The total population of the district is irrelevant to dilution under this framework b/c it centers upon diluting power of each voter in district A compared to district B. If district B has 100K Citizens and district A has 350K Citizens then, assuming each votes, the relative political power of each voter in district B more than 3x as powerful than those in district A for a HoR contest. Depending on how the State awards electoral votes it would also be true of Presidential elections in selection of electors.
Minor children, convicted felons, adjudicated Crazies, visa holder, green card holder, illegal aliens …those may be in the district and part of the population count but they don’t have the franchise and thus don’t posses the political power of the vote to be diluted. Regular Citizens of voting age do or at least the potential to do so.
It is absolutely true that rotten boroughs were made possible in part by vested interests refusing to realign ancient district boundaries. New industrial age Cities sprung up, without belonging to a particular borough …though those who possessed the qualifications COULD vote for their County Member of Parliament. They just didn’t have a borough member b/c they existed outside the established boroughs which I seem to recall were based in part on the Parish assignment of the established Church.
Chief, all boroughs had the same problem of the voters being a small percentage of the population. What made some boroughs known as “rotten” was that in addition to a restricted franchise there was a much lower base population, so that the number of eligible voters was in the dozens, if that, whereas in the bigger boroughs there were enough people who did qualify to vote that it wasn’t easy to buy them all.
In any case, whichever metric you use, the court was correct that the districts must be approximately equal in that metric. It’s only on that basis that we can discuss whether we’re using the right one.
Democrats behaving like three-year-olds; throwing a tantrum if they don’t get what they want.
True, but they’re counting on not having to face the US Supreme Court on what would be an inevitable appeal before the midterms.
“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.”
Utter projection. The only thing democrats have less of than cash in the bank is legitimacy and credibility. They are not my countrymen.
It’s quite clear that it was these selfsame democrats that spent $70m trying to game the system so blatantly that even a court which should have been simpatico with this nonsense couldn’t find it in them to go along.
I encourage the democrats to go all in on this scheme. I said here just after the court’s decision that a 6-5 split is the most optimistic outcome for Virginia democrats.
They keep this up and voters might actually pay attention and vote R.
Utter projection.
This seems to be a feature-not-a-bug of Progressivism.
Next thing you know, the D’s will be calling for their assassination if they dont get their way. They just ratchet up the rhetoric and the right stands by and says nothing. Time to start calling them out as the Loot, Destroy, & Kill party.
This seems to get better everyday.
If Democrats sack the court and pack it with their own, and gerrymander the state so that effectively no Republican representation exists, they’re pushing residents to 4th box of liberty solutions.
By sacking and packing the court they nullify the jury box, by gerrymandering the state into 1 party rule they nullify the ballot box, and they’ve demonstrated their animus for the soap box. Yes in theory the situation can be turned around come 2027, but that assumes no gerrymandering of state legislative districts!
In 2021 51.56% of the vote netted Republicans 52 seats, while 47.54% gave Democrats 48. Fair enough % = seat count rounded up.
In 2023 47.74% of the vote netted Republicans 49 seats, while 49.50% gave Democrats 51. Again similar.
But in 2025 41.04% of the vote netted Republicans 36 seats, while 57.58% gave Democrats 64 seats. Sure it could just be a 2:3 vote difference effect, but given Democrat gerrymandering efforts …
What recourse, other than violence or exodus, do Republicans have if Democrats replace democracy with single mob rule and curtail constitutional rights?
Soap, jury and cartridge, thought there was only three.
Ballot.
The Republican Counties could convene something similar to the Wheeling Convention of 1861 and secede to West Virginia. That would leave Virginia about the size of Delaware.
They can’t do that without the consent of the VA legislature.
WV’s secession was approved by the legitimate state legislature, which was then meeting in Wheeling, but moved to Alexandria because Wheeling was no longer in their state.
The statistics on the House of Delegates seats are merely the result of comparing close elections to landslides. In a landslide, it is natural for the victorious party to grab a disproportionate number of seats.
I wonder – what will the 2027 election, where the entire legislature is up, look like? Will any State Senate seats flip back R?
For Communists, there are no rules.
Sure there are. Saul Alinksky wrote a book about them.
And the right needs to apply them good and hard.
The vile, stupid and evil communist/Islamofascist criminal racketeering organization is becoming more brazenly subversive, anti-democratic and lawless, with each passing day.
These pukes are enemies of the State.
excellent
the left showing once again how to win the cultural war
what will maga do?
“The sources told the Times that one proposal under consideration involved defying the Court’s ruling and pressing ahead with the newly drawn map.”
That’s odd. I have it on good authority that during the previous 365 days there were no less than 40,713 ‘No Kings’ protests across the nation to insure there are no kings in America.
Apparently, these Virginny clowns didn’t get the memo.
Yeah, that is just not an option. They can’t do it; an election held according to their attempted map would not be a lawful election at all, and its winners would not be elected. If the Rs retain the house they would not seat these purported winners. So it’s a non-starter.
To determine who are the actual fascists in America today ask a simple question. Who is preaching and utilizing violence as a means to intimidate and silence those they disagree with? Answer: DEMOCRATS! Now they want to remove a states Supreme Court to their way. It’s going to get worse. Prepare yourselves.
Bah. Not going to happen. Idiot in a progressive newsletter had a too-clever-by-half idea and vents his spleen. Democrats bring it up during a strategy session and nobody but nobody says “Yeah, let’s do this.” At most, a couple people say “I’ll have legal look at it.”
But the NYT gets to breathe some hope into their readers’ hearts. And they get eyeballs and ad revenue. That’s all they have.
Law professors are good at gaming out loopholes in the system that can be used to do what they want. This seems similar to Lawrence Tribe’s suggestion that DC be carved up into 75 extra States in order to ram through and ratify a new Socialist Constitution. The thing is, once the NYT promotes it, even crazy ideas like this can be steamrolled into reality.
IMO this is a performative tantrum by the d/prog leadership class for the audience of their base. The leadership class knew that attempting redistricting in this way faced an unfavorable legal/constitutional climate. They charged in anyway b/c their militant Cray Cray base more/less demanded it. They lost for now, but can (and will) try again for ’28….this whole ‘retire the VA Supreme Court’ idea is intended to be an exercise in therapy for the d/prog base to demonstrate that their leadership class has considered all sorts of alternatives to drag their redistricting map used for ’26 …but there’s no way to get it done. IOW they are attempting to avoid getting eaten by the monster they created and nurtured.
Simply defying the Supreme Court would definitely push Virginia into the “guarantee a republican form of gov’t” clause territory.
Also, I think it would be a hoot to have the Supreme Court slap down the legislation lowering their retirement age. “Nope, that’s in violation of this other constitutional limitation over here. Not going anywhere.”
I wonder if ANYONE would bother to deputize some citizens to them go remove the offending legislators? That would be the right and Virginian thing to do. (Cf. Governor Dunmore)
“We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts all together.”
Really? Prove it. Go on. You have the resources. Go to the appropriate courts and prove it. Talk is cheap.
Former (30 year) VA resident.
The VA Dems are burning bridge after bridge in the state. People speak of a 6-5 split as though it reflects some hard divide. Without going to the registration numbers, I’ll bet it’s more like 35/35/30 D/I/R. The battle is always for the independents, and they broke to the Dem recently. However these dumb Dem moves are going to bring most of them Is over to GOP tickets.
I predict the current 6/5 split is going to be 4/7 in 2026
HIgh-population northern Virginia is a lost cause, though — too much bureaucratic overflow and migration, from D.C.
1. Wouldn’t ignoring the VA Supreme Court decision and using the new map risk a lawsuit where NO VA representatives are certified or seated in the US Congress after a sham November election?
2. How could you go through all the steps of legislation to change the retirement age, fight through lawsuits on the new retirement, force out the justices, nominate and approve a whole new court, file another lawsuit on the congressional districts and get it all the way to the new VA Supreme Court and still have time to hold primaries and an election in November?
You can’t. Changing the mandatory retirement age for judges requires a VA Constitutional amendment. So… two legislatures in regular session have to pass it. Next regular session is 2027.
No, the retirement age is not in the constitution, so it doesn’t require an amendment. It’s just a statute, so the legislature can change it whenever it likes. So that’s not the problem.
The problem is that a ridiculously low mandatory retirement age, especially when the reason is so blatant, would violate the equal protection clause.
Wow, petulant much Dems? That’s lower than the retirement age for much of the private sector by several years.
Okay, for arguments sake, let’s assume that the Virginia legislator passes the law to lower the retirement age of the supreme court justices to 54. What is to stop the Virginia supreme court from declaring the law to be unconstitutional?
Age discrimination.
Preemption. They’re out of office before they get to rule on the case.
They’re not out of office if it’s unconstitutional.
But there would also be a federal challenge under the equal protection clause, which would be heard, eventually, by federal judges and justices who are themselves well over 54.
“They’re not out of office if it’s unconstitutional.”
Where they gonna hold the hearings, the local beer hall?
They’d hold them at the courthouse; who’s going to evict them?
Democrats.
With what army? The judges would show up and take their places, and start hearing the case. Do you really think their court security officers would obey a Democrat order to evict them and shut the court?!
Wow, Milhouse, you are obtusely unimaginative when it comes to imagining how power-hungry Communists will react to existential threats to that power.
The state apparatchiks have the State Police and SWAT teams at their disposal. At the hint that these “disrobed” judges were taking on this case “in a unauthorized and unapproved fashion,” we’d get to see how long and how well “court officers” would stack up against them. The local media would assist by broadcasting a tale of the successful foiling of an insurrectionist plot, and the gibsmedats would pump and cheer.
If you still are unclear as to how this all works in the real world, ask Eric Swalwell.
Could this not run afoul of the Federal ADEA act and the supremacy clause? This is not an area of law I am well practiced in. But it seems on the face of it a bill with the specific intention to lower an age retirement rate to force termination night run against the ADEA and be invalidated in that clash.
The ADEA does not apply. But the equal protection clause does. See Gregory v Ashcroft. I’m writing a separate comment about it.
Don’t matter how many Tantrums you throw, you still ain’t getting the candy
Most state supreme court justices are in their early to mid 50’s when they’re appointed or elected. The democrats appear to want to grab them right after they pass the bar exam and throw them on the bench. That’s exactly how you get an ideologically captured, inexperienced court who will do what ever the party demands.
“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?”
If you ever find yourself running out of this red pill, contact me for a refill.
They will say anything, do anything, for power and control.
Hakeem Jeffries always manages to look like he has just had a raw sewage milkshake.
He looks like The Creature From Easter Island.
A banana republic tactic, thus it has appeal…
“…with sympathetic Democratic lawyers.”
———————-
Fancy way of saying loyal political hacks.
https://x.com/OcrazioCornPop/status/2053193248974262502
GROK’s CONGRESSIONAL MAP: What would the MOST FAIR U.S. House map look like if we followed the Founding Fathers’ Principles?
– Apportion seats strictly by population (census)
– Draw compact, contiguous districts inside each state only
– No partisan data, no racial engineering, no weird shapes
– Prioritize whole counties & communities
RESULT: A clean map with 265-285 R to 150-170 D seats in a 50/50 nation.
More of his post at X
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alabama-ag-makes-supreme-court-play-could-deal-decisive-blow-redistricting-war:hjaE-rCpqF4dWSehLXIrDxrtTxQ
Alabama wants to get out from under an order and reset the lines too.
I am intrigued by the giant blue area in Western Mississippi.
Any attempt by the VA legislature to impose a mandatory retirement age of 54 for judges (but not for anyone else) would immediately be challenged in federal court under the Equal Protection clause.
The decision in Gregory v Ashcroft depends crucially on a finding that “The people of Missouri rationally could conclude that the threat of deterioration at age 70 is sufficiently great, and the alternatives for removal sufficiently inadequate, that they will require all judges to step aside at age 70.”
The same could not be said for 54, even if that were proposed in the normal course of legislation. It certainly can’t be said when the motive is as blatant as it is here.
The decision also cites a Missouri court’s findings that:
None of these considerations can apply to a sudden 19-year reduction in the retirement age!
So this would have to go all the way to SCOTUS, by which time it would be far too late for the legislature to elect new judges and take the case back to them and get the decision they want, and then pass the 10-1 map again.
What? “No way of knowing whether Democrats will carry out this shameless scheme.” That’s shamelessly stupid to even suggest that. Hell yes, the Democrats will carry out their communist BS scheme. In fact, haven’t they already said they will appeal to SCOTUS?
No, they’re extremely unlikely to do so.
1. That’s not a shameless scheme. They’re entitled to do that if they can find some argument to make.
2. They’ve told the VA supreme court that they plan to appeal, but they didn’t specify the grounds (because as far as I can tell there aren’t any), and as far as I know they haven’t done so yet. Of course without grounds the court will refuse to hear any such appeal.
Followup: They have filed their SCOTUS appeal. It’s over 200 pages, so I haven’t had a chance to do more than a very brief skim, but it seems to me that their argument makes a tissue look like a model of structural integrity.
Basically, the VA court cited federal laws in its reasoning, and got them wrong, so that gives the supreme court the jurisdiction to correct it. They cite 28 USC § 1257 (a), which gives the supreme court power to review state supreme court decisions “where the validity of a [federal law] is drawn in question; or where the validity of a [state law] is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to [federal law]”; or where someone is claiming a “title, right, privilege, or immunity” under federal law. None of those things is even alleged to be the case here.
What is it about the definition of “shameless” that you don’t get/like?
There’s nothing shameless about appealing a decision you don’t like. Even if your appeal has a snowball’s chance of getting anywhere.
I’ve seen it suggested that this would be a bill of attainder. But I don’t think it would be, unless they targeted it only at the supreme court and not other courts, and then changed it back as soon as those seven judges had resigned.
Matt. Gaming a bill of attainder is something that any politician knows how to do today. Check out the recent bill that caught nobody other than TikTok. Or the Boston school system that hid their ban on whites and Asians by using “neutral” ZIP Codes instead (not a bill of attainder, but the same idea).
Ahh…Democrats…always demonstrating the political dimension of thermodynamics: everything they do is driven towards entropy, or perhaps more precisely characterized as sheer chaos. This action to remove the entire court, then install a rubber-stamp court, and to force the issue via such a draconian method is so banana republic that Democrats whinging about “democracy” are beyond cosmic levels of hypocrisy.
If it wasn’t clear then, it should be abundantly clear now: The 2000 election broke the Democrats. Broke them mentally. That loss was the straw that broke the donkey’s back.
Every insane thing the Democrats have done in elections in the 21st century can be traced back to 2000 and the attempt to rig the courts and the counting after the fateful November day. All the vote rigging, all the absentee ballot fraud, all the mail-in vote fraud, all the census rigging, all of it. It’s all related to the massive break caused by Gore’s ignominious loss to Bush.
All of the actions, accusations, propagandizing, cheating, etc. of the Democrats can be directly attributed to their unrealistic, insane desire to obtain power and keep it FOREVER. Hakeem said as much that they will keep it up until they win/transform the system.
Leave a Comment