• Bouie calls for outright Democrat defiance of the Virginia Supreme Court decision striking down a wildly dishonest and unethical attempt to wipe out Republican Congress members in an evenly divided state.
• He lies about the reasons for the Trump-led push to counter already locked-in Democratic gerrymanders in Democratic states. (I’ve posted that list of all the New England states, Hawaii and Delaware showing zero Republican representatives too many times already.)
• He pretends the referendum the court struck down was genuinely approved by the public. “The voice of the people” narrative the Left has adopted for this episode is even more dishonest than usual. I voted in the disputed election. I read what I was voting on. The language did not explain that the proposed provision would result in wiping out Republican districts; it said it would “restore fairness.” That was a lie. The election was an attempt to deceive the public. Even if the Virginia legislature had followed the law, that deceitful language alone made the election nothing but a scam perpetrated on Virginia voters.
• Bouie lies again, claiming the 4-3 decision was decided “on partisan lines.” As many have noted, Democrats are trying to obscure the fact that the author of the majority opinion was appointed by a Democrat.
• “Key Virginia Democrats quickly acquiesced to the decision,” Jamelle writes. ” Don Scott, the speaker of the House of Delegates, said, ‘We respect the decision of the Supreme Court,’ while Gov. Abigail Spanberger said that she was ‘disappointed’ but didn’t challenge the ruling or the court’s authority.” Then he says it is a mistake not to challenge the decision, even though the Virginia Supreme Court is the final word on such matters.
• He argues that the court’s decision that an election has begun when people are already voting is absurd. What is absurd is that voting isn’t automatically regarded as the beginning of an election. In this case, Virginians had cast many votes for a provision before it had been approved by the legislature. How can such votes be considered legitimate? This is like having voters choose among candidates who haven’t been nominated yet.

Taken as a whole, the entire opinion piece is misleading, dishonest, biased, and hypocritical: Bouie would be howling if President Trump openly defied one of the partisan, activist Federal judges who have repeatedly exceeded their authority to block his policies. Amusingly, Jamelle writes in his profile that he strives “for honesty, fairness and good faith in my writing.” He adds, “I am scrupulous about the facts and try as much as I can to avoid idle speculation.” His latest effort proves that his profile is also a lie.

If the Times had principles, standards and integrity, it would refuse to publish Bouie’s swill, and fire him for being an unethical hack.

But if the Times didn’t want unethical hacks, it wouldn’t have hired him in the first place.