After the Supreme Court rejected the results of the recent Democratic effort to effectively wipe out Republican representation in the state, Democratic pundits and activists have latched onto a proposal by Michigan State Law Professor Quinn Yeargain to gut the court by forcing the retirement of the current justices, appointing liberal activists, and then reversing the opinion. It is extremely telling that some are pushing the raw muscle play to retake power in Washington, particularly in light of the calls to pack the United States Supreme Court once the party is back in control.
Professor Yeargain declared on Substack that there is “a simple â and lawful â solution: Send the entire court into early retirement.” Under this plan, Virginia Democrats would adopt an absurdly low age for retirement in a gut-and-pack scheme: Yeargain suggested that they could set “the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.”
The current retirement age is 73.
Yeargain dismisses that number as “arbitrary” and says that the Democrats need only to “Make it 54 for â the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion â and make it take effect immediately.”
The fact that such an abusive plan is described as “simple” captured the logic of an age of rage. I recently wrote a column in which I warned that “the reversal of fortunes for the party could lead to an even more dangerous agenda” with Democrats pushing for .
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 , given the likely challenges. However, it is the inclination of some to try such measures that is chilling.
I noted that Virginia showed how ” 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 gut-and-pack scheme is even more cynical and brutal. Ironically, the redistricting effort by the Democrats as not only unconstitutional but “wholly unprecedented in Virginias history.”
It characterized the states 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 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-Va., lashed out at the Virginia Supreme Court and demanded to know why they waited so long to rule on whether there were fundamental
