169 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 9
Comment removed
derkmc's avatar

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter26/section8.01-675.2/

The relevant law is Va code § 8.01-675.2 and it does stipulate 21 days but there’s nothing stopping the General Assembly from changing that to say 365 days.

David Skoglund's avatar

Fight fire with fire. The current Republican Party is filthy. They are breaking norms and institutions to implement a fascist agenda nationwide. Laws and voters be damned.

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 11
Comment removed
Comment removed
May 11
JD's avatar
May 11Edited

So the Arizona GOP had TDS when it packed their court in 2016 after losing a bunch of rulings?

The Georgia GOP had TDS when they packed their court in 2016 after losing a bunch of rulings?

The Utah GOP had TDS four months ago when they packed their court after losing a redistricting decision?

Or is it okay when your side does it, but "deranged" when the left literally does one-third of what the GOP has already done?

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 11
Comment removed
David Skoglund's avatar

You have no idea of what fascism is.

Comment removed
May 11
Hugh Martin's avatar

Exhibit A for the complete and utter Bankruptcy of the modern Republican Party? They nominated and elected a transparently obvious pathological Conman for President... Twice!

Trump has been Betraying Wives, Business Partners, Investors, Banks, Contractor's, Lawyers etc. etc. for his entire life. His two closest friends were Roy Cohn and Jeffrey Epstein.

Guy Cohen's avatar

Luckily, there's more of us then there is of them. And fascism can't overcome a blue wave and an opposition party who actually fights back.

Beth Winfrey's avatar

That is the one thing we have going for us. Between the Democrats and the Independents, we can outvote the Republicans. Also, right now, there are enough angry Republicans who won't vote for their own, and they will help too. Just keep showing them all the things that Trump promised and hasn't done. It's a long enough list to make the point.

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 11Edited
Comment removed
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 11
Comment removed
Comment removed
May 11
Maggie's avatar

ended "multiple foreign wars"? Inflation is "down"? good jobs & industry are back? stop the nukes that our intelligence said were not there? the tax cuts for million/billionaires?

my my my

michaelflutist's avatar

I don't think there are more of us than them on an ongoing basis. Right now, there are. 2 years ago, there weren't.

benamery21's avatar

Bad policy and dirty pool, but entirely justified in the circumstances. We cannot be the party of "Thank You, Sir, may I have another?"

David E. Roy  Ph.D.'s avatar

This is exactly what needs to happen. Use the law to create space for us to elbow our way to the front.

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 11
Comment removed
JD's avatar

"Note what is absent from your comment, sir: any engagement with the actual legal question. "

Here's the thing: the VASC ruling didn't do that, either.

It spent 11 pages tying itself into knots trying to explain why the clear letter of the law didn't mean what it clearly meant. It uses the word "context" 28 times, and uses the phrase “context requires a different meaning" while ignoring that the whole part is "UNLESS context requires a different meaning."

The "legal question" the VASC raised was basically "but what if we PRETEND that the law says something it doesn't actually say?" That's nice for a law school class, but malpractice for a state supreme court.

Guy Cohen's avatar

54 is a bit too low. How about 70? Gets Chafin out immediately.

Jeff Friedman's avatar

There is one other option and according to the AP, it’s already kicked in: appealing the decision. Virginia Dems have filed an emergency appeal with SCOTUS. And as odious as they are, they have upheld restricting in TX and CA, on appeal-so there’s a small but hopeful chance they’ll overturn the VA. Supreme Court. Worth a try, anyway.

Pat J's avatar

Don’t hold your breath. SCOTUS put us here in the first place.

John Silas "Si" Hopkins, III's avatar

The New York Times reports that stupid has done. For anyone who believes that this option will work, I have a big pile of snowballs waiting for you on your arrival in hell. The best it can do is nothing. The worst is create a new Supublican Court doctrine that enables the Court to steal another 10 or 20 or 50 seats in the House.

michaelflutist's avatar

Not worth a try when this solution is possible. We don't want to help the Supreme Court make more bad law.

alienalias's avatar

A state supreme court exclusively interpreting state procedural law in a way that favors Republicans is not going to get taken up by this SCOTUS. Think it's worth filing, but I put it at like 2% chance of just getting taken up at best.

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 9
Comment removed
MPC's avatar

So does that justify Rs redistricting states they control mid-decade? And give me an honest answer than RW babbling.

Jeff Friedman's avatar

Agreed that it’s a slim chance, but better than not making the effort-as you never know. I look at the same situation in California, where the referendum effort and vote were a fully state-based initiative which favored Dems, and SCOTUS upheld the results-knowing it would yield five more blue seats.

alienalias's avatar

The CA gerrymander appeal was a federal challenge, that's why SCOTUS said anything at all about it.

Paleo's avatar

Based on what? It's strictly based on state procedural rules. If anything, this Supreme Court could use the case to declare that early voting periods are invalid.

Jeff Friedman's avatar

I meant to say redistricting, not restricting!

Jeri L Ross's avatar

Three dots on the right allows you to edit.

David Leiwant's avatar

This is a good idea. It reminds me of what happened when the Republicans took control of the North Carolina Supreme Court after the 2022 election and reversed a number of rulings made by the previously Democratic controlled Court for no legal reason except that the majority on the Court had changed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Lower the retirement age for the Virginia Supreme Court ASAP, then move for reconsideration of the decision at issue.

MPC's avatar

We need to do that in NC as well, lower the retirement age to force noncompliant judges out. Lowering it to 65 gets extremist Newby off the court.

If NC Dems ride a big enough blue wave into flipping the legislature, there are going to be a TON of laws passed. First will be getting the MAGA extremist judges out by forced retirement and allowing Gov Stein to appoint their replacement with no preconditions. Second will be undoing the Harper vs Hall decision. Third will be Leandro and fourth will be nullifying the 12 week abortion ban Rs forced through when Traitor Tricia backstabbed her constituents and state.

August Wolf, OLY's avatar

What a desperate Friday night fantasy

August Wolf, OLY's avatar

Context will be clear when this plays out.

David Skoglund's avatar

In other words, you have nothing.

Jacom Dlying's avatar

Did you really write this, you know this is exactly what orban did, for a party that calls itself the Democratic Party this seems profoundly un democratic.

benamery21's avatar

Are you aware of how many state Supreme courts in the U.S. have been packed by the GOP? Rules only work if both parties play fair. Fair play when the other party cheats egregiously is asking to be slaughtered.

Jacom Dlying's avatar

This is not packing, this is way beyond it, your might as well revert to 18th century uk. With your proposal to oust every Virginian Supreme Court judge from office and presumably replace them with loyalists remember this quote from the Declaration of Independence

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries”

Chris Hocker's avatar

FL redistricted in clear violation of the FL state constitution. But because the FL Supreme Court is filled with partisans appointed by the current FL governor, what’s in the constitution doesn’t matter. I’m sure you are equally outraged by that.

Jacom Dlying's avatar

And look at New York, which did the same thing, or tried to, compare Harkenrider v hochul (Rivera, J) dissenting with Hoffman v New York State redistricign commission. Also please don’t try to deny that the Virginia ballot language was not misleading. Actually cite some law next time you make an argument

Chris Hocker's avatar

So if I understand what you are saying, it’s okay for Republicans todo it, but not Dems. Can’t have it both ways.

Jacom Dlying's avatar

When did I ever say that. You think by not supporting your unamerican plan I’m somehow condoning their behavior or letting them get away with it. Honestly you take these kinds of things to personally.

Dotty Hopkins's avatar

When judges overrule the will of the people for purely partisan and not legal reasons, what option do the people have left to protect themselves and see their will carried out? It's not as if the people voted to eliminate Black voting rights and the court deemed that unconstitutional and overturned it. They did the opposite.

David Skoglund's avatar

The undemocratic party is the Republicans in the age of Trump. They have no bottom when it comes to being craven. Start there with your critique, Jacom

Jacom Dlying's avatar

So your proposal is to also undemocratic as well. Ludicrous to say the least. I know this proposal will never pass.

Jeff Smithpeters's avatar

Undemocratic?

Tell us how Virginia Supreme Court members are elected, Jacom? Some of us missed that.

Agent of Chaotic Respite's avatar

Read the room, and understand: We didn't start this fire and didn't choose to play dirty, but fuck if we should let the fascists take over without the fight this deserves.

Jacom Dlying's avatar

All this for 4 seats, sad really

User's avatar
Comment removed
May 9
Comment removed
Jacom Dlying's avatar

Well ask yourself this why isn’t the 5-2 liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court, getting you your extra 2 seats in Wisconsin. They just refused to hear a challenge for the 2nd time

Jeff Smithpeters's avatar

But not sad in Texas or Florida, right?

Charlie's avatar

No, you are sadly missing the obvious. This is not just about VA seats.

David Nir's avatar

I deleted several of your comments. Don't talk to other users that way, no matter how much they're annoying you. If you think someone has crossed the line, report the comment.

David Nir's avatar

Learn to read the room around here. Don't pick fights like this in the future.

finnley's avatar

Utah added two state supreme court justices after they refused to strike down Prop 4 so 🤷‍♀️

benamery21's avatar

Decision was 4-3. Only one conservative judge would need to be retired to flip the court. A clean slate has advantages, of course, but the optics are worse. Teresa Chafin is the eldest member of the court and would be retired by dropping the retirement age from 73 to 70, which is the current mode among the states.

Charlie's avatar

Teresa Mann is the oldest at 70, but Cleo Powell (black) is 69. Junius Fulton (black) is 68. The 3 Republican judges are 54, 56, and 64. One judge Thomas Mann, considered 'nonpartisan' is 61.

See the problem with age-ism? It doesn't necessarily reflect values.

benamery21's avatar

I honestly don't take your point, other than you don't like mandatory retirement ages (for what it's worth I'm not a fan either, but this is not a situation where we are deciding optimal policy, it's one where we are operating within the realm of the possible given prior events). Perhaps you assumed that I was unaware of the ages and ideology of the remaining justices and was assuming the younger justices were more liberal? I assure you that's not the case.

Lowering the existing mandatory retirement age to 70 (the same age as 18 other states)) means eliminating a GOP justice (Chafin) and replacing her with an appointee of the current Democratic legislative majority, presumably changing the ruling in a follow-up case on the Congressional map.

When Powell and Fulton retire they will be replaced with Democrats as well, for no change in the net partisan composition of the court. This is true whether they retire immediately, as proposed by Quinn, or by 73 (as per current law), or at 70 (as per my proposal). The only way I see how this would not be true is if the General Assembly is taken over by Republicans between now and the time of their retirement. The odds of that are low in the near term.

Joe Katz's avatar

So you're saying that if we set it as 67, we could flip the court and replace two aging justices with 35-year-old firebreathers.

Charlie's avatar

I have adjusted my idea of a good idea. If the legislature were to set 65 or 67 as retirement age, the oldest 3 are 1 Republican and the only 2 Dems. The 3 other Republicans would still be around for years. So now I go with retiring them all--so as to avoid discrimination--and replace with good, younger judges, who aren't partisan extremists. As a VA resident, I can tell you I don't want to live under a neo-Confederate Court in Richmond as well as in DC.

Kim Balkoski's avatar

virginia’s state Supreme Court allowed this expensive and time-consuming referendum to occur when it easily could have said “not so fast, folks”

Disingenuous game of gotcha? Tempting to gotcha right back at them.

This race to the bottom has no room for nice guys

Ottobouvier's avatar

Why not just lower it to a more palatable 70 which would remove one justice who was in the majority and replace her with someone highly likely to vote the other way?

derkmc's avatar

We just need Chafin out and the age lowered to 70 and you flip the court. Even if this doesn't lead to a new decision ASAP at least it shows the SCOVA who is in charge of Virginia.

curt's avatar

Well Lynn, the people spoke, Americans and Virginians and they said yes. This is not Socialist agenda, it is democracy in action. Wake up and look around! The current administration is authoritarian, corrupt, ignores the rule of law, constantly lies, demeans anyone, steps on anyone who doesn't agree with them, profits off the american people at our expense and is aligning us with Putin to destroy our democracy. It is now costing you 30% more to live. Your safety nets are destroyed and the money is going to support bombing other people and destroying ( and murdering) innocent people in this country! Think about it and see how your world and those of your family are being destroyed.

michaelflutist's avatar

Not that there's anything wrong with the socialist agenda, which is all about making life better for everyone except billionaires.

benamery21's avatar

Arguably less money would be better for them as well, lol.

Terri Lamb's avatar

Nice loophole…USE IT!!!

“The state Constitution gives lawmakers complete latitude to set the judicial retirement age. They should use it.”

Jeri Gia's avatar

Brilliant. You know the fascist, racist Project 2021 so-called Republicans would do that in a split second. Dems have to go to war with these fascists who have left us with a mere skeleton of democracy.