If Republicans had proposed such a “bank shot”—talk about a euphemism!—the Times and the rest of the leftist propaganda media would be calling it a fascist attempt to defy the rule of law and judicial authority….which, you know, is exactly what it is. The Times, being biased, despicable and untrustworthy, describes the coup as “an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map.” I already noted the scheme in a post yesterday which so far has only been laid out by in a substack post by a far-left law professor (arguably a redundant phrase). Prof Turley wrote of the plot yesterday,
“In the unlikely chance that this could pass the General Assembly (I am assuming that there remain some things that certain Democratic members just will not do), it would be difficult to engineer before the midterm elections, given the likely challenges. However, it is the inclination of some to try such measures that is chilling.
“I noted that Virginia showed how “an independent court can unravel the best-laid plans.” Various politicians and professors have advocated radical changes to the political system to ensure the party retains power indefinitely. They acknowledge, however, that the Court could likely declare these moves as unconstitutional unless they first take control through a packing scheme.
“The new proposal for the sack-and-pack scheme is even more cynical and brutal. Ironically, the Virginia Supreme Court declared the redistricting effort by the Democrats as not only unconstitutional but ‘wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history.’
“It 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 is now to suggest just shooting the dog and adopting a type of politically modified puppy bred to serve.
“Such radical proposals are being rationalized with open disinformation. Pundits regularly fail to mention that the Democrats previously gerrymandered states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York while claiming the right to win by any means necessary.
“Others just deny reality. Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Kaine) lashed out at the Virginia Supreme Court and demanded to know why they waited so long to rule on whether there were fundamental flaws in the Democratic plan.
“Kaine either never read the opinion or sought to mislead voters. The opinion has an entire section on the timing, noting that it was the Democrats and the Commonwealth that demanded that the Court wait to rule on the merits until after the election. After ‘successfully’ seeking that delay, they are now accusing the Court of something untoward in doing what they demanded.
“Notably, the sack-and-pack scheme sets aside any pretense of principle. The Democrats would simply adopt a ridiculously low retirement age for the sole purpose of populating the court with reliable and robotic justices. The fact that an academic and various pundits would expressly float such an idea is another chilling reminder of the growing radicalization on the left.”
As is often the case, the too-restrained law prof understates just how outrageous a partisan attack on law and liberty is. “Growing” radicalization? The Democrats are now advocating assassination and lying outright to the public to get a death grip on single-party rule. I’d call that a bit more than “chilling.”
The Times report concludes, “Facing stiff headwinds, including President Trump’s low approval ratings and high gas prices, Republicans are looking for every advantage they can find to defy the odds and hold on to their narrow majority.” Republicans are looking for every advantage? Good one, NYT. Democrats have advocated packing the Supreme Court, adding states and more, not to mention flooding the nation with illegals to artificially boost the census number in “sanctuary states.”
The paper does end its mild (and therefore misleading) report by quoting my former Congressman, the wildly unethical and corrupt Democrat Jim Moran. (His EA dossier is here, I had fingered him as an Ethics Dunce way back to my previous ethics website, the now missing “Ethics Scoreboard”). Moran said that “said “a move to stack the Virginia Supreme Court would be ‘just a bridge too far’ and could backfire on his party. “We do have to keep our credibility. We have to do things that pass the legitimacy test,” the old hack intoned.
Sure, Jim. But that ship, as the saying goes, has already sailed.
Here’s a gift link to the Times story. I’m afraid to read the reader comments.
Ethics Alarms 
“I’m afraid to read the reader comments.”
Surprisingly, not that bad. Quite a number are calling out democrats for their shadiness.
I think this proposal is logistically impossible, given the timing. But imagine if the timing were better — I think it then becomes reasonably likely they might attempt it, although I don’t think enough of the Democrats would be on board to attempt such a transparently partisan destruction of the supposedly neutral court.
This, ultimately, is where “by any means necessary” inevitably leads — proposals which would draw universal horror and opprobrium if it were offered by anyone other than Democrats. Yet the media in general and Times in particular blandly refer to it not as an attempted coup d’etat but a policy “bank-shot.”
Republicans and independents should take note. If you don’t want to wind up in reeducation camps and on the short end of a social credit scheme due to insufficient loyalty to the Left, you should immediately find a way to get them out of power. They have set the rules, which is to say, there are none except for their enemies. They will lie, cheat, steal, trash the rule of law and the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government if that’s what it takes to get the power they crave.
This is not the end of it. They will think of something, even if it comes to ignoring the court and implementing the map anyway. If they do that and manage to win sufficient seats in the mid-terms to take the House, there is little that could be done before they find a way to codify it “legally.” With the left, legality is little more than a skinsuit for them to wear around so they can claim legitimacy.
Govern yourselves accordingly.
Well stated, Glenn…a great response to a great post by our host. I think of all the times I’ve heard stories told about how criminals come up with insanely creative and twisted ways to steal and scam their way to getting what they desire. I often cringe at the fact that, while I hate the end result, I have to admire their ingenuity and creativity. I think to myself, “My mind just can’t think of those things.”
This idea of forcing the VA Supreme Court into full retirement – whether or not it has any real chance of success – reminds me of those stories.
(To borrow from A.M. Golden)…
Now I’m not saying the Democrats in the Virginia legislature are criminals…
Theses slimy tactics have been par for the course for way too long, and for the longest time the GOP was content to surrender first and pretend to fight afterwards. They were even content to be the minority, since it meant they had to do less. It’s gotten past being a cozy minority that doesn’t do much, though. The Democratic Party is now attempting in earnest to wipe the GOP off the map through redistricting and manipulated demographics. Bush the younger was perfectly ok with that, and I think Romney would have been too. After all, they didn’t want to be called racist. Trump is not, and neither are the governors of the GOP states now. If the blue states can make a point of putting a blue city in every district or breaking up rural areas, then red states can break up cities between districts and otherwise dilute the power of the opposition. Representation goes by district, not color.
As for assassination and outright lying, well, two can play at that game. Sir Arthur Harris said something to the effect that it was illogical for the Germans to assume that they could bomb everyone else and then not get bombed themselves. That’s not to say that the Hamburg and Dresden raids were objectively all right, they were brutal acts of total war. However, after the Blitz and the bombing of all Europe, the Germans really were not in a position to accuse anyone else of brutality. I also won’t pretend that we didn’t target Zarqawi in Iraq, bin Laden in Pakistan, and most recently Khameini in Iran, and that especially bin Laden was an extrajudicial killing. However, given what these individuals did, I think the proper response is “so what?” In war the way to win is to kill the enemy and break his stuff. I don’t think we want to take ourselves into a civil war, but we almost got there in 2020, and if one side keeps acting like that, the other side is no longer prepared to suffer for it.