SouthernWorldwide.com – Following the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to reject a recent Democratic attempt to diminish Republican representation in the state, a proposal has emerged from Democratic pundits and activists. This proposal, spearheaded by Michigan State law professor Quinn Yeargain, suggests a drastic measure to reshape the court by forcing current justices into early retirement, appointing liberal activists, and then reversing the court’s prior decision.
This aggressive tactic to regain political power is seen as particularly telling, especially in light of past discussions about expanding the United States Supreme Court once the Democratic party is back in control.
Professor Yeargain outlined his plan on Substack, describing it as a “simple – and lawful – solution: Send the entire court into early retirement.” His proposal involves Virginia Democrats enacting an exceptionally low mandatory retirement age for judges. Yeargain suggested this could be achieved by setting a retirement age “beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.”
The current mandatory retirement age in Virginia is 73. Yeargain dismisses this age as “arbitrary.” He proposes that Democrats could lower this to “54 for Supreme Court justices – the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion – and make it take effect immediately.”
The author notes that the fact such a “brazen” plan is labeled “simple” reflects a prevailing “age of rage.” This echoes concerns previously raised by the author, who warned that a shift in political fortunes for the Democratic party could lead to a more radical agenda, including efforts to pack the Supreme Court.
While the author acknowledges the unlikelihood of such a measure passing the General Assembly, especially before the upcoming midterm elections given potential legal challenges, the very inclination to pursue such tactics is described as “chilling.”
The author previously highlighted how an “independent court can unravel the best-laid plans.” This sentiment is now being met with calls from some politicians and professors for radical systemic changes to ensure the Democratic party maintains power indefinitely. They recognize, however, that such moves could be deemed unconstitutional unless the court is first controlled through a “packing scheme.”
The newly proposed “gut-and-pack” scheme is characterized as even more “cynical and brutal.” Ironically, the Virginia Supreme Court had declared the Democrats’ redistricting effort not only unconstitutional but also “wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history.”
The court’s opinion described the state’s position as “a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail.” The response from Yeargain and other Democratic activists is now seen as an attempt to “shoot the dog” and replace it with a politically engineered entity designed to serve their agenda.
Such radical proposals are being justified with “open disinformation.” Pundits frequently fail to mention that Democrats have previously gerrymandered states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, while simultaneously asserting a right to win by any means necessary. Others, meanwhile, are accused of outright denying reality.
Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va., reportedly criticized the Virginia Supreme Court, questioning the delay in ruling on the alleged flaws in the Democratic redistricting plan. However, the author contends that Kaine either did not read the opinion or intentionally misled voters.
Baca juga di sini: Dybala Misses Out on World Cup: Roma Forward Not Named in Argentina's Preliminary Squad
The opinion, according to the author, dedicates an entire section to the timing, clarifying that it was the Democrats and the Commonwealth itself who requested the court delay its ruling on the merits until after the election. After successfully securing this delay, they are now reportedly accusing the court of impropriety for acting as requested.
The “gut-and-pack” scheme is seen as abandoning any pretense of principle. The Democrats would simply implement an extremely low retirement age solely to install justices who are perceived as reliable and compliant. The fact that an academic and various pundits are openly advocating for such an idea is presented as another disturbing indicator of growing radicalization on the left.
These figures are likened to the “new Jacobins” discussed in the author’s book, “Rage and the Republic.” This comparison draws parallels to the radical concepts and methods employed in France leading up to “The Terror,” with “by any means” becoming a prominent slogan on the left.
Law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale have publicly called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” In a December column, they argued that the U.S. Supreme Court is “illegitimate and must be replaced.”
Democratic strategists are reportedly aware that the public would likely not endorse such measures. Democratic strategist James Carville is quoted as stating matter-of-factly that the party plans to recommend increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13, and that this will happen regardless of public opinion.
Carville’s advice is to “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
What is particularly striking about the Virginia proposal, the author notes, is its open and unapologetic promotion. Democrats are aware that they have already alienated a significant portion of Virginia’s electorate. Republicans and independents are unlikely to forget that prominent Democrats in the state, including Governor Abigail Spanberger, sought to eliminate their political presence.
This situation is described not as partisan, but as “personal.” In severing ties with potential crossover voters in a purple state, the remaining approach is characterized as “raw political brutality.” The pursuit of radical measures to seize power necessitates a “dump-and-pump” strategy, where no court or institution is considered sacred in the quest for social and political change.
The entire endeavor is framed as an embodiment of the “Nike School of Constitutional Law: Just do it.”
