In a triumph for Republicans, the Supreme Court recently handed a blow to Virginia’s ambitious yet misguided attempt to redraw congressional maps in a way that favored Democrats. It seems a harsh lesson in basic constitutional principles was in order for Virginia’s Attorney General. Apparently, some lessons from law school, such as the role of the state Supreme Courts in interpreting state laws and constitutions, may have eluded him. Such oversights would be humorous if they weren’t so consequential.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, with only a few months in office, thought the United States Supreme Court might intervene in a case lacking federal concerns. This move, seasoned with naiveté, aimed at appealing to the highest court with a brief that might as well have been scribbled in crayon. Perhaps more attention should have been paid during those early spelling bee days because even the state’s name was misspelled. Given the shaky, anemic legal arguments based on obsolete doctrines, it was hardly surprising that the court’s justices quickly dismissed the appeal.
The situation is rather embarrassing for Governor Spanberger and her Democratic colleagues who previously threw $70 million at a redistricting gamble. Now, Virginia Democrats ponder a new scheme: targeting the justices on their Supreme Court, aiming to substitute them with liberal allies. The audacity of this approach mirrors a trend among Democrats nationwide, who have toyed with the idea of revamping the judiciary tilting it in their favor. It’s a strategy that brings new meaning to judicial activism, one that aims to dismantle and rebuild the courts to echo their evolving ideologies.
Further afield, echoes of similar sentiments can be heard from figures like former VP Kamala Harris, who advocates for augmenting the nation’s highest court with additional justices. Her rationale veers towards accusations of corruption and illegitimacy directed at the current court which happens to have ruled against Trump on several noteworthy occasions. It is curious indeed that the multiplicity of decisions contrary to Trump’s interests seems to slip by unnoticed amidst cries of bias.
The Democrats’ desire, it seems, goes beyond mere dissatisfaction with court verdicts. Their aim is not just a different court but one where every decision comfortably aligns with their progressive tenets, dancing to the tune of a liberal maestro. Such fervor to alter the judiciary reveals a remarkable lack of constitutional knowledge among some recent appointments. This drive, cloaked in the rhetoric of battling injustice, sounds paradoxical enough to give anyone, including ardent supporters, a headache. As America watches, the political theater continues. With an impending election, it’s left to the voters to balance out these gavel-happy dreams and bring courtroom sanity back to the forefront.
