By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate a voter-approved congressional redistricting amendment, Democrats are considering a unique legislative strategy. The Virginia Constitution grants the General Assembly the power to set mandatory retirement ages for judges. By lowering this age, for instance to 54, and making the change effective immediately through inclusion in the upcoming budget bill, the entire current court could be compelled into early retirement. This would allow for the appointment of a new court that could then revisit the redistricting case.
Read the original article here
The current political climate in Virginia presents a unique opportunity for Democrats to challenge a redistricting ruling that many believe undermines the will of the people. The core of this challenge, as articulated by a significant portion of public discourse, lies not in directly defying court orders, but in a more strategic, albeit radical, approach: retiring the Supreme Court. This isn’t about breaking rules, but about fundamentally altering the composition of the court to revisit and potentially overturn decisions that are perceived as unjust and anti-democratic.
The sentiment is that the current Supreme Court, whether at the state or federal level, has become a barrier to the democratic process, actively working against the expressed wishes of voters. When the people vote and their choices are subsequently invalidated by judicial rulings, a profound disconnect emerges. This disconnect fuels the argument that if the established structures are no longer serving the governed, then the governed have a right to change them, drawing parallels to foundational American principles of altering or abolishing governments that become destructive of natural rights.
The historical precedent for such a radical notion is, according to some interpretations, embedded in the very fabric of American governance, with Virginia playing a pivotal role. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, a precursor to the Declaration of Independence, emphasized the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that fails to uphold their safety and security. This historical context is invoked to suggest that a state, like Virginia, has the inherent right to make drastic changes when its governing institutions, including its judiciary, are seen as corrupt or out of step with the public will.
A key proposal for how Virginia Democrats can navigate this situation involves a legislative maneuver to effectively “retire” the current Supreme Court justices. This could be achieved by passing legislation that, for instance, lowers the retirement age for judges, thereby necessitating the departure of older justices. The subsequent appointment of a new court, presumably by elected officials who are more aligned with the current political landscape, would then provide an opportunity to re-hear the redistricting case and issue a different ruling. This approach is seen as a “fully legal route to the same destination,” as opposed to outright defiance, which could invite severe repercussions.
This strategy is viewed by proponents as a necessary act of self-preservation in an era where political opponents are perceived as not adhering to traditional rules. The argument is that Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to push boundaries, and Democrats must respond in kind, even if it involves unconventional tactics. The idea is to fight back proactively, rather than passively accept unfavorable rulings, particularly when those rulings are believed to be based on flawed premises or political bias.
The frustration stems from a feeling that the current court, by siding against the will of the voters on redistricting, is enabling a system where “big money buys ultimate corrupting power and mutes democracy.” The current situation is seen as a mockery of the Constitution, especially with the nation approaching its 250th anniversary. Therefore, what might seem like an extreme measure is, in this perspective, a necessary step to restore balance and ensure that the government remains accountable to its citizens.
Moreover, there’s a pragmatic consideration: if the current court is perceived as illegitimate or biased, its rulings hold less sway. The suggestion to simply ignore the ruling and proceed with the new map, while more direct, is seen by some as legally perilous, inviting immediate SCOTUS intervention and potential sanctions. The legislative retirement of justices, on the other hand, offers a path that, while controversial, is framed as legally sound and thus less vulnerable to swift judicial backlash.
The proposed solution of retiring the Supreme Court justices is also seen as a way to address concerns about judicial bias potentially stemming from age. The idea is that older justices may be more prone to biases that cloud their judgment, and a younger, more diverse court could be more attuned to the contemporary needs and will of the people. While this aspect of the proposal might feel “icky” to some, it is presented as a lesser evil compared to living under what is described as a “fascist puppet” regime that disregards democratic principles.
Ultimately, the argument for Virginia Democrats to “retire the Supreme Court” hinges on the belief that the existing judicial system is no longer a neutral arbiter of justice but an obstacle to democracy. By strategically changing the composition of the court through legal legislative means, Democrats can, in theory, create a pathway to overturn redistricting rulings that are seen as disenfranchising voters and distorting the democratic process. It’s a bold strategy, one that acknowledges the current political realities and proposes a decisive, albeit unconventional, response to ensure that the will of the people is reflected in the governance of the Commonwealth.