VA SCOTUS oral arguments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The part about the Utah story that's so interesting to me is not the resignation, but that the legislature has created an entirely new court to hear constitutional disputes (including redistricting). Democrats should be learning from all of this.

Republicans are not shy in using their power. Slightly different context, but the legislatures in both Wisconsin and NC stripped the governor of power in lame duck sessions right after a democrat won the governorship in those states. Both Arizona and Georgia republicans expanded and packed their supreme courts when it became clear those states were going purple. And of course there was the attempt to keep Allison Riggs from taking her seat on the NC Supreme Court after she won the 2024 election. When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled abortion was a right protected by the state constitution, Iowa republicans passed a bunch of bills removing powers from the Chief Justice and giving them to the republican governor so he could pack the courts. The list goes on.

No kings, amirght?

It should be "no corrupt POSs" which covers all of the GOP.

OK, so you want a king as long as he is your king. Got it.

Liberals are the only one calling him king. You cant make this up!

MAGA cannot stop lying.

“ The White House posted a picture of President Trump and King Charles III with the caption “two Kings” amid the monarch’s visit to the U.S. on Tuesday.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5854013-white-house-kings-trump-charles/

Are you that stupid? He was making fun of fools like you! Smh.

If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and talks like a duck. It’s a duck. Wake up!

[Anonymous]

Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

Not a citizen vote. Vote is in General Assembly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

Not a citizen vote. Vote is in General Assembly.

Are you some sort of constitutional expert?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

For some reason the Sixth Circuit didn’t think that was an issue when it intervened to overrule the Ohio Supreme Court in 2022 after it found the republican legislature’s maps unconstitutional under the Ohio constitution. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the fact that the circuit panel was 2-1 republican and it got to order the state to use maps that favored republicans.

The panel couldn't reject the original gerrymandered maps. It rejected the updated maps with even more gerrymandering. There's a limit to what courts can review.

But you told me federal courts wouldn’t take a case decided on a state constitutional issue. Yet the Sixth Circuit did when it helped republicans.

It upheld the lower, state, courts ruling. So, in essence, it did nothing. Even if SCOTUS takes the case, ruling against the state (or commonwealth) court is extremely unlikely. There's no reason to set a precedent that would strip states of authority over their own elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

For some reason the Sixth Circuit didn’t think that was an issue when it intervened to overrule the Ohio Supreme Court in 2022 after it found the republican legislature’s maps unconstitutional under the Ohio constitution. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the fact that the circuit panel was 2-1 republican and it got to order the state to use maps that favored republicans.

The panel couldn't reject the original gerrymandered maps. It rejected the updated maps with even more gerrymandering. There's a limit to what courts can review.

But you told me federal courts wouldn’t take a case decided on a state constitutional issue. Yet the Sixth Circuit did when it helped republicans.

It upheld the lower, state, courts ruling. So, in essence, it did nothing. Even if SCOTUS takes the case, ruling against the state (or commonwealth) court is extremely unlikely. There's no reason to set a precedent that would strip states of authority over their own elections.

The Ohio Supreme Court had ruled on the case. The Sixth Circuit overruled them. The precedent of stripping states of their authority was already set by the Sixth, but of course that only applies when it helps republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attention Virginia residents: Virginia Supreme Court Justice D. Arthur Kelsey is up for re-election this January. Justice Kelsey was among the four justices who ruled against the redistricting measures intended to address Republican gerrymandering — effectively overturning the will of Virginia voters. Make your voice heard at the polls and vote accordingly.

Not a citizen vote. Vote is in General Assembly.

Are you some sort of constitutional expert?

No. I just live in Virginia and vote in Virginia. I also read. You might try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good grief. Total incompetence.

Ok, so the AG of Virginia, Jay Jones, has filed an emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court asking them to overrule the Virginia State Supreme Courts ruling, and while he may have sent it through spellcheck this time, he failed to change templates..because this one is still going to the Supreme Court of Virginia. The incompetence is mind blowing. 😆😆😆

You all should really check with appellate litigators before saying things are errors. They've done it correctly. Here are some other examples:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A349/284940/20231013090543221_SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A1207/407852/20260502123104939_Danco%20SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application%205-2-26.pdf

Can you point me to the text in an example that corresponds to the highlighted section from the VA appeal? I don't see text in that spot in the examples, maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Thanks

It's in the exact same place in each brief. But seriously, do you realize how stupid all you MAGAs sound? The cover was correct, but even if it weren't, there is no federal court in this country that would care about a typo on the cover page. In the worst case scenario, the court clerk would notice the error (to be clear -- no error here; I'm just trying to help you understand), and ask the lawyer to correct it and refile the brief. This appeal will almost certainly be rejected but definitely not because of the cover page of the brief. Only a non-lawyer would fixate on something so trivial as the cover page and believe that it would make any difference. Twitter is a cesspool; stop believing what you read there.

Stop being a typical lawyer prick. I couldn't find it because the examples given were much more wordy and different. "Application to stay to judgement OF (lower court)" is different and much more clear than "On emergency application TO (Virginia Supreme Court)". This is why people hate lawyers.

PP wasn't being a prick. You're an idiot.

-not a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

DP I am not following. There are some idiot Democrats that have tried to stop gerrymandering in their states, but the tide has turned since SCOTUS affirmed that gerrymandering is totally copacetic. It is idiotic to not gerrymander when it is permitted and the other side will do it with no hesitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

How many times does this need to be explained to you morons?

1. Republicans aren't concentrated in New England. There is no way to carve out a district unless you draw a circle round all of the MAGA houses.

2. Democrats have pushed to ban gerrymandering for years and Republicans have fought it. You can't BoThSiDeS this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

How many times does this need to be explained to you morons?

1. Republicans aren't concentrated in New England. There is no way to carve out a district unless you draw a circle round all of the MAGA houses.

2. Democrats have pushed to ban gerrymandering for years and Republicans have fought it. You can't BoThSiDeS this.

DP

I am a Democrat who supports gerrymandering by Democrats as long as it is allowed. Many Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering. Some Democrats decided to try to ban it, which was dumb because the other side would never do that. Banning gerrymandering needs to be done across the board or not at all.

In Maryland, Democrats have engaged in extreme gerrymandering for a long time. Democrats are their own worst enemies though - thanks Bill Ferguson - and they haven't yet been able to get rid of the last GOP seat. I hope they do soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

How many times does this need to be explained to you morons?

1. Republicans aren't concentrated in New England. There is no way to carve out a district unless you draw a circle round all of the MAGA houses.

2. Democrats have pushed to ban gerrymandering for years and Republicans have fought it. You can't BoThSiDeS this.

Maine is still part of New England, last I checked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

How many times does this need to be explained to you morons?

1. Republicans aren't concentrated in New England. There is no way to carve out a district unless you draw a circle round all of the MAGA houses.

2. Democrats have pushed to ban gerrymandering for years and Republicans have fought it. You can't BoThSiDeS this.

Maine is still part of New England, last I checked.

The 2nd district was Republican for a very long time. They lost it during Trump's first term because more people wanted the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate. That was the same year that they also overwhelmingly elected a Democratic governor.

Trump is bad news for purple states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS won’t take the case, more time and money wasted by VA democrats.

I can’t even with this lawyer brain. This was a decision by republican politicians to help out other republican politicians. So now they want to appeal to yet another group of republican politicians? Gee guys, I wonder what they’ll do? They might as well appeal to a committee of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, and John Thune.

Seriously. I thought democrats were starting to get it, but this move just shows they still don’t. Apparently even after Calais, Virginia democrats still think SCOTUS is some neutral forum that will fairly apply the law.

I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get it through their thick skulls. How about they take a page from how republicans have reacted to court losses?

They could look at Ohio republicans and just ignore their state Supreme Court.

Or they could look at Utah republicans, who launched a bad faith investigation of a justice who ruled against them and forced her to resign.

Or they want a veneer of legality around it, they could get creative and lower the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 70, forcing one of the justices who ruled against them off the bench, immediately appoint a replacement, and get the case reheard.

Okay. Say the Supremes overturn the referendum ruling.
You do know that the Dems appealed to the VASC to delay the ruling (prior to the election) because of the Virginia law--you know, the law they are NOW complaining about with the timing of the election.

GOP has also filed against the referendum results on the basis of the lack of "neutral language" in it. VA Supremes did not rule on that because they already overruled the referendum.
I don't understand how this all works, but if the US Supremes rule in favor of the Dems, does that case still get considered?

Why are you wasting time thinking about things that won’t happen. The Supreme Court is controlled by republicans and will vote for republican interests. Why can’t democrats understand that? It’s like you guys just can’t let go of this fairy tale that the Supreme Court has anything to do with law or justice. They are politicians in robes. Accept that and act accordingly.

So make them do it. Don't pre-surrender. Make them do what we all know they are going to do. Hem them in and expose the partisan bs for the partisan bs it is.

Whether State Constitutions, State Courts, State Electorates, and State Governors even have any say in federal elections is something this partisan SCOTUS (and the GOP) has been flirting with and was the legal cover for what they were trying to do on Jan 6th.

Louisiana is talking about cancelling an election that is ongoing right now in order to redistrict after the VRA decision.

Make SCOTUS either rule against those shenanigans or overturn the Virginia Courts decision. There are broader implications involved. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. Not making them choose is a flight of idiocy.

And on what ground would they overturn the VA Supreme Court's ruling on what the Virginia Constitution says? SCOTUS has no say, unless there was some sort of due process issue which there is not. You seem to think you will make them go on record but that is not what would happen. They would just deny cert without comment. There is nothing partisan in this one.

According to their theory neither the VA Supreme Court or the Virginia Constitution has any relevence. The only thing that matters, according to their theory, is what the Legislature says.

Don't assume anything or pre-surrender. Use their own arguments.

Didn't the VA legislature propose the original amendment to have non-partisan redistricting? I think it passed with well over 60%.

The irony is that in the court case, it was the AG who requested that the election go forward and wait until after the election to rule.

And the legislature proposed this one as well. According to MAGA theory the legislature has absolute unchecked power to do whatever they want without regard to state constitutions, state courts or even the results of a vote.

Re all the dishonest liberal pundits spouting off numbers about the Virginia vote total on redistricting:

1.605 million -- YES
1.499 million -- NO

2.771 million -- YES
1.447 million -- NO

The first vote was on the 10-1 map.

The second vote was on the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2020 banning partisan gerrymandering in the drawing of congressional maps.

Where was democracy most ignored?

Ironically, most of the people who voted yes in 2020 were the same people voting yes again this year. Dems have been pushing to ban gerrymandering for years.

Republicans are perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them.

Doesn't that show Democrats are also perfectly fine with gerrymandering as long as it helps them?

This is really simple:

Democrats: We oppose gerrymandering by all parties, but if Republicans do it, we will follow suit.
Republicans: We are in favor of gerrymandering, but only when we do it.

Suggest you take a look at New England. NO GOP reps--and high 40% vote GOP.

+100. The hypocrisy on gerrymandering is pretty glaring. Democrats will talk endlessly about Republican gerrymanders in the South, but somehow New England gets a pass even though Republican voters there can make up a huge share of the electorate and still get almost no representation. That is not some noble defense of democracy. It is the same game with different beneficiaries.

How many times does this need to be explained to you morons?

1. Republicans aren't concentrated in New England. There is no way to carve out a district unless you draw a circle round all of the MAGA houses.

2. Democrats have pushed to ban gerrymandering for years and Republicans have fought it. You can't BoThSiDeS this.

You think that the African Americans all live in one or two huge clump in the South? Seriously?