The Bench Coup – A Special Report From The Last Wire — Virginia Democrats and the New War on Judicia

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Bench Coup – A Special Report From The Last Wire
Virginia Democrats and the New War on Judicial Independence

A Special Report from The Last Wire

Virginia Democrats Want to Purge the Court After Losing a Redistricting Fight

The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against a Democrat-backed redistricting plan, and now activists are openly discussing lowering the judicial retirement age to force out the conservative majority and replace them with friendlier justices.

Not win the argument. 
Not rewrite the amendment. 
Not convince voters.

Remove the judges.

This is bigger than Virginia. It is about whether courts still mean anything when they stop producing the “correct” political outcome.

Read the full special report at The Last Wire

[libertybele]

..."When the court intervened, the reaction was immediate rage. "................

From Obama's administration forward anytime the leftists don't get their way their reaction has been one of rage.  Obama himself failed to comply with the courts. He taught the leftists to simply ignore the courts and to keep pushing till they got their way.

They have learned well... we are at a boiling point; not a tipping point but a boiling point.  Riots, destruction and assassinations from leftists who have become so radical that they will use 'whatever means necessary' to get their way.  Hate'm Jeffries who as the minority leader in the House of Representatives should be setting a lawful example, instead, mentioned that the DEMS will win the mid terms by ''whatever means necessary".  So the heck with our 'Rule of Law' it can simply be ignored. One political party continues to try to adhere to the rules while the other party insists that there are no rules to comply with but the rules that gives them the outcome that they want.

That is hardly a Republic.  That is Marxism.

[Cyber Liberty]

Several books have been written about the "Legislators in Robes."  I liked the one by Mark Levin.

[Cyber Liberty]

..."When the court intervened, the reaction was immediate rage. "................

From Obama's administration forward anytime the leftists don't get their way their reaction has been one of rage.  Obama himself failed to comply with the courts. He taught the leftists to simply ignore the courts and to keep pushing till they got their way.

They have learned well... we are at a boiling point; not a tipping point but a boiling point.  Riots, destruction and assassinations from leftists who have become so radical that they will use 'whatever means necessary' to get their way.  Hate'm Jeffries who as the minority leader in the House of Representatives should be setting a lawful example, instead, mentioned that the DEMS will win the mid terms by ''whatever means necessary".  So the heck with our 'Rule of Law' it can simply be ignored. One political party continues to try to adhere to the rules while the other party insists that there are no rules to comply with but the rules that gives them the outcome that they want.

That is hardly a Republic.  That is Marxism.

Speaking of books, Jonathon Turley wrote a good one recently about the "Age of Rage."  I just finished it recently....

[andy58-in-nh]

In a healthy and functional Republic, the rule of law is accepted by all political factions as a baseline for order and security.

As a free people, we may agree or disagree about many things as individuals. In voluntary groups, we might organize and lobby for policies, programs and laws that lead to desired outcomes.

We can and should debate such matters, and either vote on them as individuals or through our freely elected representatives.

Once such matters are decided by democratic means, the rule of law impels us to respect those decisions, even if they are not what we ourselves favored, as long as such rules or laws are consistent with the foundational social compact under which we have agreed to be governed. In the United States, that would be our Constitution, and for each individual state in the Union, their own constitutions whose provisions must accord with superior Federal law.

When individuals or groups no longer agree to be bound by such rules, and instead seek to circumvent them to achieve what could not otherwise be accomplished through the accepted processes and procedures of voting or law-making: the rule of law is rendered ineffectual, and its enabling statutes reduced to meaningless words.

What happens then, when an entire political movement (and the party that claims to represent it) no longer truly respects, values or recognizes as valid the very foundational documents, the organizational structures and the procedural rules that it once established for governance of the nation? 

I ask only because that is where I believe we are right now. I do not expect that most people who wish to continue life under the same documents and principles will find comfort in the answers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In a healthy and functional Republic, the rule of law is accepted by all political factions as a baseline for order and security.

As a free people, we may agree or disagree about many things as individuals. In voluntary groups, we might organize and lobby for policies, programs and laws that lead to desired outcomes.

We can and should debate such matters, and either vote on them as individuals or through our freely elected representatives.

Once such matters are decided by democratic means, the rule of law impels us to respect those decisions, even if they are not what we ourselves favored, as long as such rules or laws are consistent with the foundational social compact under which we have agreed to be governed. In the United States, that would be our Constitution, and for each individual state in the Union, their own constitutions whose provisions must accord with superior Federal law.

When individuals or groups no longer agree to be bound by such rules, and instead seek to circumvent them to achieve what could not otherwise be accomplished through the accepted processes and procedures of voting or law-making: the rule of law is rendered ineffectual, and its enabling statutes reduced to meaningless words.

What happens then, when an entire political movement (and the party that claims to represent it) no longer truly respects, values or recognizes as valid the very foundational documents, the organizational structures and the procedural rules that it once established for governance of the nation? 

I ask only because that is where I believe we are right now. I do not expect that most people who wish to continue life under the same documents and principles will find comfort in the answers.

Great post.