MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
I am pretty sick and tired of "establishment" Democrats nervously tittling about Graham Platner, the presumptive nominee in a Senate race we simply have to win. It reminds me of the way Centrist Democrats would always undermine Bernie Sanders with doom and gloom prognostications, when the actual numbers were quite different. And the hypocrisy of criticizing someone's hyberbolic youthful indiscretions when the alternative, people like Chuck Schumer who opposed the JCPOA (rememeber that?), has always deferred to AIPAC, and sold out to Trump on the first shutdown ... (I could go on and on)... are far less representative of what potential Democratic voters actually want and expect from government.
We Democrats need to be a big tent, sure, but we need to stop shooting at our own best candidates, focus on what's important, which is winning control, and actually stand for what the American people want. Across the board, our so called leaders fall short, and it's people like Platner who speak plainly and will act accordingly.
Look, folks. The very continued existence of our democracy is at stake, and we must pull together, pass the torch, nominate and elect new faces with new ideas, and be prepared to commence the gargantuan task of repairing all the damage that's been done, and in the process correct the myriad systematic problems underlying our current state of affairs. Oh, is that all? Yep, that's about it. We may only really get one shot at this, but this is our opportunity, and if we fail to take it quibbling with our own, we are fools.
______________________________MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
______________________________
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM TRANSFIGURAT
ET SUMMUM GAUDIUM SALTAT
MUSICA SUMMUM DOLOREM CANIT ATQUE ITA COMMUTAT ~
SUMMAM LAETITIAM SALTAT ATQUE ITA ANIMOS CAPIT
I'm pretty shocked by the Virginia Supreme Court decision on the redistricting referendum. I thought courts were deferential to votes of legislative bodies, but EVEN MORE deferential to actual votes of the electorate. And given the recent green light to the most egregious gerrymandering by the US Supreme Court, I don't get how they could reach this decision with a straight face. Can you explain its rationale, and whether the consensus is that it's a primarily politically motivated decision?
Your reaction is not unusual. A great many legal commentators — including some who are not especially sympathetic to partisan Democratic redistricting — seem to think the Virginia Supreme Court majority reached for a highly technical procedural rationale in order to invalidate a result it politically disliked. The decision has already generated a lot of commentary precisely because it feels in tension with the modern judiciary’s generally extreme reluctance to overturn enacted maps or voter-approved measures. (Vox)
The core of the court’s reasoning was not, formally speaking, about whether the map itself was an impermissible gerrymander. In fact, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, federal courts largely treat partisan gerrymandering as a “political question” outside their competence. So the Virginia court instead focused on the amendment process itself.
Under the Virginia constitution, constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature must pass in two separate legislative sessions with an intervening general election between them, so voters can theoretically weigh the issue when electing legislators. The majority held that the first legislative approval happened after early voting had already begun for the relevant election. Therefore, they reasoned, the constitutionally required “intervening election” had already started, meaning the process was defective from the outset. (PBS)
That sounds technical because it is technical. The entire dispute turned on what counts as an “election.” Does “the election” mean Election Day itself, or does it mean the entire early-voting period? The majority adopted the latter interpretation. Since some Virginians had already cast ballots before the legislature acted, the court concluded those voters were deprived of the chance to evaluate legislators’ positions on the amendment before voting. (PBS)
The dissenters reportedly argued this interpretation was both overly formalistic and democratically perverse because the electorate ultimately did vote directly on the amendment itself. In other words, even if the procedural sequence was imperfect, the people ratified it anyway. That is very close to the intuition you expressed. (Vox)
And that gets to the heart of why so many observers see the ruling as politically motivated.
Courts are indeed often deferential to enacted legislation. But they are especially deferential to constitutional amendments approved by voters, because striking one down means overriding not merely legislators but the sovereign electorate itself. Traditionally, courts usually require a very clear constitutional violation before doing that.
adopted the narrowest and most outcome-determinative reading possible of “election,”Here, critics argue the court:
treated early voting as constitutionally transformative in a way Virginia precedent had not clearly established,
and imposed an exceptionally rigid procedural standard despite the referendum’s actual ratification by millions of voters. (Vox)The broader political context also matters enormously. This case arose amid an escalating national tit-for-tat redistricting war after Republican-controlled states such as Texas and Florida pursued aggressive mid-decade remaps. Virginia Democrats openly intended this amendment as a countermeasure that could shift as many as four House seats toward Democrats. (The Guardian)
Federal courts, including the current U.S. Supreme Court, have largely tolerated highly aggressive partisan gerrymanders.That context makes the asymmetry feel striking to many people:
But the Virginia court then invalidated a voter-approved Democratic response on procedural grounds.So even people who dislike the Democratic map itself often see an inconsistency in judicial attitude. The message can appear to be: substantive partisan gerrymandering is acceptable, but procedural imperfections in attempts to counter it are fatal.
There is not complete consensus that the ruling was “purely political.” Conservative defenders argue that constitutional amendment procedures exist precisely to constrain temporary partisan passions, and that courts have a duty to enforce those procedures strictly regardless of consequences. They would say that if early voting has become part of the election itself, then legislators cannot constitutionally wait until voting is already underway before acting. That is at least a legally intelligible argument.
But the dominant reaction in mainstream legal commentary so far seems to be that the majority chose an unusually aggressive remedy and an unusually rigid interpretation in a context where courts normally bend heavily toward validating voter-approved measures. (Vox)
