Below is my column in the New York Post on the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court to nullify the result of the recent gerrymandering to eliminate virtually all Republican representatives in the purple state. The reversal of fortunes for the party, however, could lead to an even more dangerous agenda.
Here is the column:
“Eff around and find out”: That taunt from Hakeem Jeffries celebrating Virginia’s gerrymander did not age well.
On Friday, the House minority leader found out that Virginia’s Supreme Court was not quite as gleeful as he about Democrats’ attempt to virtually eliminate Republican representation in the purple state.
The court just cooked the party’s infamous lobster, a district over 100 miles long that was designed to help devour the GOP’s slender majority in the House of Representatives.
It also cooked the ambitions of Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the Democratic establishment, which tossed aside any pretense of principle in a raw political gambit.
The resulting faceplant is nothing short of legendary: Spanberger’s Democrats have succeeded in alienating half of the state.
For the governor, the court’s decision was particularly embarrassing.
Before assuming power, Spanberger denounced gerrymandering as “detrimental to our democracy and weakens the individual voices that form our electorates.”
She ran as a moderate, but Spanberger immediately turned sharply left once in office and called for the most extreme gerrymander in the nation.
The court found that effort was 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.”
While some of us had previously expressed skepticism over the rushed effort to circumvent the state constitution, the media almost exclusively relied on liberal experts who predicted the new districts would be upheld.
It was a calculated risk for Democrats, who have now burned their bridges with Virginia conservative and Republican voters.
As Winston Churchill said, “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.”
Exhilarating and unforgettable: In a purple state where politicians often require crossover votes to prevail, the redistricting push was not just partisan but personal for voters.
National Democrats will soon “find out” whether Jeffries was right to prematurely celebrate a victory that seemed to secure his anticipated elevation to Speaker of the House.
The party is facing a potentially catastrophic reversal of fortune.
When Democrats declared a gerrymandering war, some of us warned that the party, with its already heavily gerrymandered blue states, had far more to lose than the GOP did.
It was particularly comical when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey pledged to join the redistricting fray, even though her state is so badly gerrymandered that it’s elected zero Republicans to the House since the 1990s.
Virginia, a state long opposed to gerrymandering, has been considered the fairest state in the country, with a distribution of congressional seats that closely matches its partisan divide.
Once Spanberger sought to eradicate Republican representation, total war broke out — and now red states like Florida and Tennessee have moved forward with their own redistricting.
On top of the fact that GOP states have more room for partisan gerrymandering, the Virginia Supreme Court decision comes on the heels of the US Supreme Court’s ban on racial gerrymandering.
That means a dozen or more Democratic districts could now be deemed unconstitutional — and Louisiana and Mississippi are moving to redistrict in line with the Supreme Court’s decision.
The result could be a dramatic shift in districts favoring the GOP.
To make matters worse for the Democratic Party, a new census in 2030 will correct the mistakes that erroneously awarded them multiple districts after the 2020 census.
Those corrections, and the ongoing exodus from high-tax blue states to booming red ones, could translate into even more congressional gains for the GOP.
That prospect of a political apocalypse has Democratic strategists pushing for radical changes in Washington before it’s too late.
Top priority: packing the Supreme Court as soon as they retake power.
As Virginia has shown, an independent court can unravel the best-laid plans.
Democratic politicians, pundits and professors have been openly pushing for expanding the high court to 13 members with four new liberal additions, in order to rubber-stamp the radical changes needed to keep the party in power.
James Carville recently told Democratic politicians that they have no choice but to pack the court, declaring “F–k it . . . Just do it.”
He suggested, however, that they might not want to tell the voters.
“Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it,” he said. “Just do it.”
Last week, Jeffries declared the Supreme Court “illegitimate” as he blasted its ban on racial gerrymandering.
After the Virginia court’s ruling, the frustrated Democratic establishment is ever more likely to echo him — and to go beyond.
Many Democrats are now “all in” with this radical agenda.
With the courts declaring their redistricting efforts unconstitutional, it is the constitutional system itself that will now have to go.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Don’t know if someone else brought this up, but I think that Virginia is the only state, or maybe one of two,? that has the state legislature/general assembly select and appoint state Supreme Court justices (instead of public vote/election or maybe a state commission). And even without the redistrict, Democrats currently control both chambers. That I do know. Virginia was historically a Red state; even its Democrats were conservative. Not so much anymore. So it really is a slap for the state high court to reject Spanberger’s plan.
( I also think she signed for three additional constitutional referenda/referendums, to support abortion, same-sex marriage, and restoring voting rights for convicted felons. Isn’t the state slogan “Virginia is for lovers?” They ain’t kiddin’)
If the roles were reversed, the dems would smell blood and move in for the kill. This republican senate – this “most deliberative body” – does just that – deliberates – and nothing else. They diddle themselves.
Nearly $64 million was spent supporting the VA redistricting referendum. An interesting question is “Did insiders profit from a legally dubious campaign they probably knew could fail?” Who made money on this and what is their relationship to elected officials? Are Spanberger and Jones already reaching into the cookie jar? Inquiring minds want to know. . .
I seem to remember a somewhat successful effort to disbar attorneys who represented Trump in connection with the election certification and his appointment of alternate electors, under the premise that these attorneys were assisting in blatantly illegal activities, and not legitimate legal theories. Just another case of rules for thee and not for me?
Illiberal Democrats have made it clear, their enemy is not just We the People, but the Constitution as well.
Dont watch Fox news.
Actually, IIRC, I got the word illiberal here. And it fits. It is the stupid and crazy far leftist that have taken over the Democrat party. Bill Maher has been pointing it out for years.
Bill Maher Mocks ‘Stupid’ People Who Oppose Trump Ballroom Just Because They ‘Hate’
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/bill-maher-mocks-stupid-people-who-oppose-trump-ballroom-just-because-they-hate/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Sen. John Fetterman agreed with him.
I have been wondering for some time if anyone has done an analysis of the impact on the census of the flood of illegal aliens into the country, and in particular to blue sanctuary districts during the Biden administration. Yes there has been a migration of taxpaying citizens out of heavily taxed and dysfunctional blue cities and states, but I haven’t seen anything on the expected effect on the census. I have posited for some years now that the open border policy by Biden was done for the purpose of increasing the allocation of representatives and electors to the blue states which are natural magnets for such immigrants.
This is exactly why citizenship should be checked of voters. The illegal throng may receive social benefits immorally because they are incorrectly counted in official censuses, they should NOT be allowed to vote or take part in our elections. Doing so corrupts our representation as well.
The constitution says the census must count ALL PERSONS. If you want aliens excluded you will have to get an amendment passed. Good luck with that. It’s impossible to pass an amendment without bipartisan support.
I, also, have a similar question, unadulterated. It’s my understanding the House reps are capped at 435. Let’s hear from the intelligent and knowledgeable commenters. What is and how is the packing of noncitizens in blue states a benefit to dem reps.
^^^and electoral.
After the 2026 election, the Republicans need to fix the census counting citizens for representation. Apportionment cannot depend upon state packing. It’s gaming the system.
Noncitizens whether legal or illegal cannot participate in social welfare programs federally. No loopholes can exist after such gaming has been identified. Florida should not pay for what will be incredible chaos mamdani and others create. The loophole is federal.
Burning the candle at both ends. Americans are frugal people. It’s a basic principle.
After the 2026 election, the Republicans need to fix the census counting citizens for representation.
They can’t. It’s literally impossible. A constitutional amendment can’t pass without bipartisan support, and the Dems won’t support it.
Suppose R and D states are matched 50-50 in population and in representation close to 218-217. If D states have a 1% influx of noncitizens, then in the next census the population will split 50.5-50 so D states will get about 0.25% more seats and R states about 0.25% fewer and representation will be more like 219-216. Every 1% of net noncitizen influx swings one seat to the states with the influx.
The 435 reps are distributed among the states according to their numbers in the census. And the constitution REQUIRES the census to count all persons, including aliens, legal or not. So the more people a Dem-controlled state has, the more representatives and electors it will have.
“To make matters worse for the Democratic Party, a new census in 2030 will correct the mistakes that erroneously awarded them multiple districts after the 2020 census.”
“Mistakes” is being generous. More like subterfuge.
Republicans are not taking this seriously enough. The Left has repeatedly shown that they are willing to do anything to take complete control. Spanberger was elected as a moderate in a purple state. Its not RI or Mass, where the left have supermajorities in the state houses. There have been some very close calls that were stopped either because of election results or a few people that simply did the right thing. The last time the Left had the chance, they tried to eliminate the filibuster and were only stopped by Manchin and Sinema. This time the VA SC stepped in. The Left had no problem weaponizing the court system against Trump and but for the election, would have jailed Trump on bogus NY felony charges in a heartbeat. They had no problem flooding the country with illegals by ignoring ever immigration law, and had no problem with people knowing that it was for the purpose of willing elections by replacing potential voters. They don’t really care if anyone hears the quiet part out loud. If an effort fails, like in VA, no problem, they just move on to something else.
What Carville is suggesting is how civil wars are started. Does anyone really think that by packing the SC with four new liberal Justices, who will push through the Left’s wish list, that it isn’t going to lead to massive violence? So no filibuster and a packed Court? What’s the first thing they’ll want to do, disarm the public? Then what? Legalize government censorship? Open the border, leading to mass amnesty? Punitive, confiscatory tax laws? Buy more votes using fraudulent govt handouts? Another COVID style govt crackdown? Republicans need to wake up, these are truly evil people that want to take everything you have.
Jon….WAKE UP
Fascist Democrats don’t get embarassed…and untill they started getting jailed for their crimes…it is GOING TO GET WORSE!
This decision was so obvious, but 3 members of the court voted to uphold the map. What on earth were THEY thinking???????? How could they excuse such blatant violations of their own constitution?
“What on earth were they thinking????????”
Liberals only focus on one thing. . .control. . .like a baby who cries for their favorite toy until the parents give it to them.
They were looking to keep their cushy jobs. Reports as late as last week here in VA were saying that dem “operatives” were “leaning” on the justices. “Nice little job ya got here. Be a shame if something happened to it.” Fortunately 4 of the justices had a spine. Of course next time the VA legislators meet they will “correct” that.
The decision was NOT obvious. The three judges who voted to uphold the referendum found the Democrat argument, that the word “election” in the VA constitution means Election Day, more convincing than the Republican argument, that it means the entire election season. That’s a completely reasonable legal theory, and in some other state it might be upheld, but in VA the law is now decided the other way, which is also reasonable.
Gerrymandering was already in full swing before Trump was elected for his 2nd term. Reference many of the blue states after 2020. Illinois had some extremely strange congressional districts that nearly cross the entire state. There are no congressional Republicans east of New York. This despite several states having 46-48 % Republican voters. Republican popular votes exceeded Democratic popular votes in the House in the 2024 election by 4 million votes but the Republican count in the House declined by 2.
There are, of course, several states that have no Democratic representatives. If anything there are several congressional seats in the south that were carved out specifically to have Black representation and basically are Democratic seats and their fate is unknown but likely to decrease.
I think Virginia is an easy case to attack because the new governor basically lied her way to the top, then repudiated nearly all of what she said. In a near 50/50 state that may not signal a long career.
Who knows, if Trump fires enough federal workers, they may leave and Virginia turns truly purple or Republican .
“Once Spanberger sought to eradicate Republican representation, total war broke out — and now red states like Florida and Tennessee have moved forward with their own redistricting.
On top of the fact that GOP states have more room for partisan gerrymandering, the Virginia Supreme Court decision comes on the heels of the US Supreme Court’s ban on racial gerrymandering.”
So, it’s Virginia’s fault, and not SCOTUS issuing a fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act that inspired Florida and Tennessee? The truth is that partisan gerrymandering is just racial gerrymandering with a dress shirt and tie. The official SCOTUS position is to ignore the documented results and rely on intent and then ignore evidence of the intent. John Roberts has been working to destroy the VRA for decades. He’s Roger B. Taney with a better command of the language. Look at what the states did immediately after Shelby v. Holder and Louisiana v. Callais, then try to claim there was no racist intent.
Virginia’s problems remind me of the old saying “be careful of what you ask for, since you may get it.” In this case, Spanberger is a one term governor.
VA governors are limited to one term by law.
You are correct. I misunderstood the comment. That said, in all of VA history only William Smith serve a second consecutive term, being elected after VA deserted the Union. In modern times, Miles Goodwin was the only Governor elected to a second term after waiting out the required time.
@ enigmainblackcom
If I read multiple articles correctly, the Supreme court only said that you cannot create districts based on racial demographics. In other words you cannot racially discriminate in any form. It has nothing to do with the political gerrymandering that any of the states do. In Virginia’s case they did not follow the states constitution, so the judges ruled against it, it was not racially motivated. The Virginia legislature may now try to change the districts according to the rules of the constitution and achieve the same map, it will just be later than now. As to racially gerrymandered maps they are illegal as all discrimination should be.
Go back and look at what the new maps in Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida will do, more specifically, who will be eliminated. The House of Representatives may well have no Black Republicans after the midterms (none of the existing four are returning) and now gerrymandering will reduce the number of Black Democrats. Gerrymandering has become so convoluted in recent decades it’s hard to generalize but it has never been race neutral.
I agree that Virginia didn’t follow the state constitution and neither did Florida which bans partisan gerrymandering. The difference is, the partisan Florida State Supreme Court may simply ignore the constitution and do it anyway. Pick a state recently gerrymandered by Republicans and I’ll demonstrate how it was race-based.
One of those Black Republicans won his house seat in about the richest, Whitest, FL congressional district there is, against an all White field of challengers, and is now the front runner to become governor. You seem to be suggesting that without the benefit of racial gerrymandering, that the only way that Black representatives can be elected is if their districts contains enough Black people, or is it that only liberal Black representatives can competently represent Black People?
That’s my Congressman. Byron Donalds. His replacement will be just as good.
“You seem to be suggesting”
Byron Donalds election would prove that even a former drug dealer could get elected with a Trump endorsement in certain parts of Florida. Donalds also passed bad checks but entered into a diversion program he doesn’t want DC residents to have. Donalds didn’t get elected because he’s Black, but because he’s controllable and can be smacked down at any moment. Another Black Republican is running for Michigan governor, one already lost a Senate primary in Texas and the other in Utah didn’t like how his district was redrawn and bailed out. Whatever the reason, the next group photo of House Republicans will be telling.
On the other hand, Memphis is seeing it’s Black population divided into thirds to get rid of the one majority Black seat in a majority Black area. In Texas, leading Black Democratic House members saw their seat targeted for their elimination. Pick a state and I’ll show you the racist impact.
“Pick a state and I’ll show you the racist impact.”
My Lord, where would you be without playing the race card?
The subject was racist gerrymandering, which cannot be honestly discussed without mentioning race.
“Byron Donalds election would prove that even a former drug dealer could get elected with a Trump endorsement in certain parts of Florida.”
Donalds was sworn in to his House seat before Trump took office in January of 2017. Trump didn’t even know his name when he was elected, but keep trying.
I was addressing his lead in Republican primaries in the Florida Governor race. No way he gets consideration without Trump. As far as being elected to Congress. He was/is a tool that cannot refuse to do the bidding of his overseers. Not once has he dared not toe the company tine because what they giveth, they can take away. I notice you didn’t address him having been a drug dealer and passing bad checks.
Ok, I’ll address it. His Wikipedia page states, “In 1997, Donalds was charged with marijuana possession, but the charges were dropped as part of a pre-trial diversion program, and he was fined $150 (equivalent to $300 in 2025).” As to the bad checks, “In 2000, he pleaded no contest to a felony theft charge for allegedly attempting to defraud a bank (by depositing a bad check), but his record was later sealed and expunged.[6][7][8][9] According to an attorney consulted by the fact-checking site PolitiFact, “Donalds would not have been able to get his record expunged if the state considered him a convicted felon.”[10]”
Do you have information that this is false? If so, please post it for all of us to see.
DIg a little deeper than Wikipedia. Anything I show you, you’ll dismiss. His ex-wife has made statements about how he got into dealing drugs (not just possession). If you are interested, it’s out there.
No, I promise you I won’t if you can show me any credible evidence he was a “drug dealer”. Because all you have proven thus far is that you are a liar.
https://www.wgcu.org/top-story/2024-07-09/trump-vp-hopeful-byron-donalds-ex-wife-shares-her-story-says-what-hes-doing-is-super-dangerous
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/byron-donalds-florida-governor-race-marijuana-arrest/
Ex-wife, LOL. On principle I never believe anything negative that an ex-wife says about someone. It’s very common for them to lie, and there are no consequences to stop them.
He himself said he sold drugs. Even though he minimized it, how do you deny that?
What do you mean “he minimized it?” It was minimal and at a very tender age.
You have your near perfect black who wants to reform the justice system, and because he is a Republican, you wish to destroy him.
You show raw hatred to Republicans, tempering that to look good when speaking about white Republicans.
You say it was minimal because when Donalds finally acknowledged selling drugs after years of denying it, he says it was just a little bit. That’s what I mean by minimalized, he admitted to the very least he could given the amount of information out there.
Never in life have I heard an apologist for a drug dealer because it happened “at a very tender age.” I can understand experimenting with drugs at an early age but selling them is a different category.
What the hell is a “near perfect Black?” According to youir standard? Give that some thought and try to figure out what’s wrong with that statement.
“What the hell is a “near perfect Black?” According to youir standard?
Enigma, you delve deeply into racism and hypocrisy. I knew about Donalds’ minor drug use and minor problems as a youth for a long time, but I didn’t see these problems advancing into adulthood. They give me pause, but I am sure the Democrats vet him firmy, something they never do to their own. According to my standards I would have excluded the word black because he is a man like you and I, but I am speaking to a racist, so I have to make it clear he is a black man.
Stop with the victimhood.
“I knew about Donalds’ minor drug use and minor problems as a youth for a long time, but I didn’t see these problems advancing into adulthood.”
Say the words, he was a drug dealer. Is that a mindset you outgrow?
At the time of the Florida Trident story, Donalds did not respond publicly to questions about Hall’s statements. But during a lengthy interview this week with CBS Miami covering his life and his campaign for governor, Donalds said she was correct and that he dealt drugs “for a period of time, low level amounts.”
According to the NY Times, Barack Obama has been candid about his past drug use, primarily during his teenage and college years. He first detailed these experiences in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, describing them as a way to navigate questions about his identity and racial heritage.
Obama also admitted to frequent use during high school in Hawaii and his early college years. He was part of a group of friends known as the “Choom Gang” (from the Hawaiian slang “choom” for smoking marijuana). He acknowledged using “maybe a little blow” when he could afford it, though he stated he never tried heroin.
Maybe that’s what Byron Donalds was doing too?
“I notice you didn’t address him having been a drug dealer and passing bad checks.
Enigma, you have a habit of reducing people to categories rather than seeing them as whole individuals. You are hypocritical, often arguing this or that black who had legal problems was a victim of racial bias, specifically black people.
Byron Donalds is such a man. He was 18 when arrested for marijuana possession at a time of severe disparity in law enforcement. There was high racial profiling in that area of Florida. Thankfully for him, his charges were dismissed.
The second was a “bribery” charge at 21, though it sounded more like a bad-check banking scheme involving an illicit $1,000 check. Normally, I believe, this is considered a misdemeanor, but there is a good reason to believe he was charged more because he is black. His record was eventually expunged, which was also a good thing. I don’t believe in putting young people in jail for such crimes because they come out as hardened criminals.
He also wants criminal justice reform. You always talk about it, but in Donald’s case, he is a Republican, so you wish to strike him down.
Hypocrisy must be your middle name. I support Donalds because so far he is the best man running. His performance as a Congressman is excellent. His desire for criminal justice reform is mine as well, but for you only if he is a Democrat. He will enact such reform. As a rule, Democrats talk big but do little. Donalds is a black man who easily skirts through the racial game you play. He refuses to play this divisive racial game you are so reliant on.
There is literally NO SUCH THING as “racist impact”. Racism BY DEFINITION must be intentional. If there is no racist intent then it’s NOT RACISM.
Yes, the next congress is likely to have fewer black members than the current one. So what? It’s racist to care about this. It’s just as racist to say that it’s a bad thing as it is to say that it’s a good thing. It’s just a thing, morally neutral. There is no “right” number of black congressmen. Zero is just as valid a number as 435.
Deliberately drawing districts to have a black majority is just as racist and unconstitutional as deliberately drawing them to have a white majority. They have to be drawn for non-racial reasons (including partisan reasons) and let the racial numbers come out however they come out.
You could be on the Supreme Court! You say, even though you can see a thing, and measure it, it doesn’t exist as long as it can be called something else. Try this, throughout most of American history, politics has been indistinguishable from racism.
That is just not true. You are such a liar, your entire way you view the world is a lie. There is no such thing as “systemic racism”. No race is “entitled” to a certain percentage of anything. Individuals, regardless of race, are all entitled to the same treatment. If it’s OK to tell a white Democrat that since this is a Republican state we’re going to draw the districts so that you’re never in a majority and you and your fellow Democrats will never be able to elect someone you support, then it must be equally OK to say the same thing to a black Democrat. Drawing a district on purpose so that there will be a black majority, when you would never do that for white people, is racist and illegal.
Are you covering your eyes and ears and screaming “Wah, Wah, Wah?” You simply can’t handle the truth!
I do not care what other states are doing as long as they are complying with the Supreme Court ruling against districts being decided on racial grounds. If you think they are discriminating against a particular race, then a lawsuit should be filed. If they have in fact redistricted by race instead of population then they should be punished for discrimination and have to redraw the maps. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Communists and all sorts of political affiliation make their own choices as to where they want to live. Hopefully it is not based on race. As to your comment “Gerrymandering has become so convoluted in recent decades it’s hard to generalize but it has never been race neutral.” you are correct because of the interpretation of the voting rights act. Now it has been put to neural as it should have been. Discrimination is bad. People that see discrimination in everything have a problem. Correcting racism is difficult unless everyone agrees to go beyond color.
The whole point of what just happened in Louisiana v. Callais that it is now almost impossible to win a lawsuit when a race is discriminated against. The court says it has no role in political gerrymandering no matter how much racial impact is documented. The reason the VRA ever existed was in an attempt to level the playing field. The court is saying that any attempt to level the playing field by identifying who’s on first cannot be used, therefore, ensuring a permanent imbalance. The states recognize they can do whatever they like, including targeting minority districts in minority areas (Memphis) in an attempt to reduce/eliminate Black representation.. States can now comply with the Supreme Court Ruling while being racist as hell.
https://medium.com/afrosapiophile/john-roberts-sees-black-people-as-having-no-rights-hes-bound-to-respect-0a8298950d7c
Racial districting DOES NOT HAPPEN, except for the kind that was struck down in Callais, which is deliberately discriminating in favor of black voters, and therefore against non-black ones. There are NO districts, anywhere in the USA, that were drawn for the purpose of boosting the power of white people because they’re white. Everywhere that courts have not interfered, districts are drawn to boost the power of voters who support the dominant party, regardless of race. Race is a useful proxy for voting intent, but that’s not racism. If you could identify Republican-voting blacks or Democrat-voting whites they would be treated the same way as Republican-voting whites or Democrat-voting blacks. So there’s nothing wrong with that, and it’s unconstitutional for a court to interfere.
You may not be, but most of us consider ourselves Americans. Why do you always divide Americans up into different segments. One citizen, one vote. Stop trying to get black representatives through gerrymandering, and work toward neutral districts where there is no favoritism.
By the way, Byron Donaldson will end up being the governor of my state, or at least I hope so. He is black, and well liked.
You don’t even know the man’s last name. And Republican gerrymandering eliminates Black representation, even when they are the majority of the community, like in Memphis.
Are you now going to go after typos? I know his name well, and have met him at several events. However, I prefer your complaints about typos rather than your racist comments.
” even when they are the majority of the community, like in Memphis.”
Did you ever think that not all blacks are like you, and many will vote for the best candidate, even if the candidate is a white Republican? Not everyone is a racist
Enigma, your racist arguments ring hollow. There are 61 voting blacks in the House of Representatives out of 435 seats. That is 14%, slightly avove parity.
Enigma, do a fact check on this:
“As Democrats whine about the loss of a so-called “black congressional district” we should remind everyone that Steve Cohen (D-TN), who represents District 9, is white, and that Democrats have spent millions to prevent Charlotte Bergmann, a black Republican, from winning the seat.”
The Democrat party is primarily responsible for Jim Crow laws.
Hakeem Jeffries and his Democrats shout about “Jim Crow 2.0” when it is Democrats who implemented Jim Crow 1.0.
Democrats fought to keep slavery.
It was Democrats who enforced racial segregation.
It is the Democrat party that disenfranchised Black voters and continues to disenfranchise Black voters.
How many Republican ‘candidates of color’ has the Democrat machine prevented from holding office? It’s okay to have Black representation in Congress, but only if they stay on the Democrat plantation, right?
Maybe now we will see more Republicans ‘of color’ getting elected on a fair playing field.
“Maybe now we will see more Republicans ‘of color’ getting elected on a fair playing field.”
After the midterms (or even now) look at the group photo of Republican House members, Senate Members, interns, and staff. I would agree with you wholeheartedly about which political party started Jim Crow, with the help of the other party that decided to facilitate and overlook it (Compromise of 1877 and Posse Comitatus). The Party that initially only allowed it to happen is the current caretaker of Jim Crow.
MAXIMUM REDISTRICTING WARFARE
Do it, Republicans.
SC Rep. James Clyburn to Republicans: “Be very careful what you pray for, because what I do believe is that when they finish with the redistricting, there will be the possibility of at least three Democrats getting elected here in South Carolina to the US Congress.”
If that’s the case, then every South Carolina Democrat in the State House and State Senate will vote to advance the redistricting bill, right? lol
The Lib’s only hope is to pack the court. It is coming, so why not get the party started? Trump should appoint 4 more conservative justices. And in a few administrations every person in the US will be a member of the SCOTUS and we can have mob rule.
We don’t know that it is coming. But if we start it then we know they’ll continue it.
Right now we have a majority so we have no reason to add 4 more. We’re good with what we have, so what purpose would 4 more serve? If you imagine that they’ll help us when the Dems have a majority, how can they do that? If we add 4 then when the Dems have a majority they’ll add 8, or 10, so what will we have gained?
They can’t pack the VA Supreme Court the same way the Federal one can be packed VA Constitution, Article VI, Section 2
The Supreme Court shall consist of seven justices. The General Assembly may, if three-fifths of the elected membership of each house so vote at two successive regular sessions, increase or decrease the number of justices of the Court, provided that the Court shall consist of no fewer than seven and no more than eleven justices. The Court may sit and render final judgment en banc or in divisions as may be prescribed by law. No decision shall become the judgment of the Court, however, except on the concurrence of at least three justices, and no law shall be declared unconstitutional under either this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States except on the concurrence of at least a majority of all justices of the Supreme Court.
And therein lies the rub. Each of those 4 patriots will be replaced at the next session of the legislature.
The swamp never has enough money or power. The big question is how many RINO’s will join the DSA, candy commies, when said genuine fascists take over. Answer: all of them. The party of FREE still run enough electoral ballot processing departments to conquer liberty minded Americans. The Marxists run so many anti-schools, where innocent humans actually graduate dumber than when they entered, that American history could actually follow the plot of the 2006 movie “Idiocracy”.
Our only saving grace is that the leaders of the “Free Shit” party seem to have been the first ones lobotomised. They walk and speak so tightly in lock step that, on the rare occasion that they are forced into a real debate, they look ridiculous. By owning the media and Academia and K-12 they managed to turn the utter destruction of great American cities into an electoral advantage. If they see their power threatened they will surely fire up the riot and assassination machine that they control. We are in for a bumpy ride.
When the DEMS don’t get their way, corrupt, they act like spoiled brats but even worse, they make threats, cry unfair, etc. They installed a Stooge for a Governor. Obama, VA DEM Party, Dollar Store Obama Jefferies, Woke Left Wing groups cry. Defeated in the Courts at their own game. They really thought and expected to get away with it. They counted on it to regain power. But they FAILED. The people won.
they act like spoiled brats but even worse, they make threats, cry unfair, etc. … Um… isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
1) He’s not making a threat, 2) he’s not crying since he won, 3) he’s not saying it’s unfair. But other than that your make a (in)valid point.
No. That is not what HullBobby is doing. He just, aptly, pointed out how wrong you are.
Thanks Upstate!
Wrong.
I had to explain HullBobby’s comment to you.
What threats has he made?
I’m not sure they totally expected to get away with it, regardless of their brave face. They must have known that there was a significant chance of defeat. They swing for the fences regardless of risks. And when they lose one, they spout a public tantrum that their base laps up.
I do not think that any administration should ever suggest any form of court-packing.
I’m hopeful that the epidemic of partisan gerrymandering that arose in the wake of the VRA’s now-terminated temporary hall-pass to engage in overt racial discrimination will end in a midterm campaign fireball of voter rejection of any form of gerrymandering, and a resurrection of national commitment to one person/one vote.
Well let’s look at Soviet history for an example of bad to worse policy once resistance was shown. So the Soviets moved from Lenin to Stalin as the head of the Party and with that came a sharp increase in ‘violence’ as the weapon of choice against internal dissent. Lenin used it as a temporary tool to quell pockets of resistance. Stalin became the master of terror using violence as the GO TO for every irritation. Virginia Democrats are not used to loses (Youngkin really shocked them) and they are determined to eliminate that problem. Let’s watch as SPAMBARFER ramps up the State Administrative Machine to crush dissent and create a Bureaucrat Utopia where all citizens conform OR ELSE.
VA Dems are unsound. DEms are unsound in general. Take TN. A white man has represented the black folks of my hometown since 2010. Now the likely winner of TN-9th will be a black republican woman. All the SCOTUS ruling says is that states cannot redistrict by skin color.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/democrats-and-the-tennesssee-two
Old white man Cohen being tossed so a black conservative woman can represent Memphis is a microcosm of the emptiness of liberal race arguments.
Define “Soviet”.
Yep. We know it’s coming. Keep in mind that Spamberger worked for the CIA. While the CIA has many patriots and they have done many great things (I guess, since it is a secret) it is, as everyone knows, an organization that pays zero attention to the law anywhere in the world, including here. “. . . . . .by any means necessary” is probably drummed into every employee at orientation. Spamberger lives that way still. That we need the CIA is undisputed. That we need a CIA agent running any part of OUR lives, is scary.
No one should be shocked that a Democrat runs as a moderate is actually a marxist or a fascist, take your pic. Remember, Joe Biden ran as a moderate and then basically tried to reform the US by opening the borders. And he and his people lied to everyone for 4 years ABOUT EVERYTHING, including about Covid and his cognitive decline. These are sick people. We all have to remember the secretive “f*** it. Just do it.” That’s who they are.
Larry O’Connor (You Can Call Me Larry
Quoted someone as saying that President Trump should go ahead and do the packing. Let him add four more conservative justices to the court. After all, he’s definitely receiving that request from the Democrats
You know, I’ve been wondering why no one has suggested that.
Wondering huh?
We don’t have the numbers to pass that legislation, with a 2 vote margin in the House and a Senate filibuster.
What good would that do? We already have a majority on the court, why do we need 4 more?
Are you under the impression that Trump adding 4 would prevent the Dems from adding 8? or 16?
We need legislation ASAP that requires the census to differentiate between citizens and noncitizens. Apportionment should be based only on citizens. Permanent residents and illegal aliens should not determine political outcomes.
However, if SCOTUS fs us on birthright citizenship it’s over, just a matter of time.
No legislation can do that. It would require amending the constitution, and that’s impossible without bipartisan support, which this wouldn’t get.
Marxist streamer Hasan Piker calls for a violent revolution:
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2052780952573616178
It look’s like that congressmen like Rho Kanna (D-CA) are not bother from this rhetoric:
https://x.com/LoomerUnleashed/status/2052788016075219402
Loomer is your source? She’s as looney as they get. Leave it to MAGA to pick the retards as a source.
He either said it or he didnt. I didnt hear it but its easy enough to check the tape. If he did say it, he should be careful what he calls for he might get it.
You need to get out of your basement and get some fresh air.
He said it. Loomer just pointed it out. https://x.com/LoomerUnleashed/status/2052788016075219402
Where do we sign-up?
Go for it. See what you get.
It might eventually happen. Our Gini coefficient is very high (0.42), but not French Revolution high (0.59). However, some major Dem localities are getting near revolutionary levels (New York: ~0.51 – 0.52.
District of Columbia: ~0.51.
Connecticut & California: Exceeding 0.50
Cities with Highest Inequality: Atlanta (0.5677), Boulder (0.5607), and New Orleans (0.5601).
California must’ve gone from 0.55 to 0.50 when Elon left.