Res Judicata: the law of the case. I see that the Democrats are at the denial stage of grief. This is a bell that cannot be unrung.
Res Judicata
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Law of the case? Laws? Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws.
It’s convoluted, but I can see the logic. They’re not trying to overturn this ruling (which is how they get around res judicata); instead, they’re trying to strike down the amendment that established the independent redistricting commission, so that their newly appointed puppet justices can invalidate the 6-5 maps and redraw the districts themselves.
(I assume the reference to the circuit court ruling on the recent referendum that was noted in the tweet would be invoked as a new development in order to avoid laches, or something along those lines.)
It holds together with gum, smoke, mirrors, and wishful thinking, but given that the legal philosophy of most leftist judges is “result first, law later (if ever),” that would be more than enough if their court clearing-and-packing scheme went through.
It’s convoluted, but I can see the logic. They’re not trying to overturn this ruling (which is how they get around res judicata); instead, they’re trying to strike down the amendment that established the independent redistricting commission, so that their newly appointed puppet justices can invalidate the 6-5 maps and redraw the districts themselves.
Far too late to raise such a challenge now to the 2021 amendment. There would also be the question of standing. Not to mention that I doubt the Supreme Count of Virginia would allow a reduction in retirement age to retroactively apply to sitting justices. These stratagems are being dreamed up, apparently, by people who are clueless as to how courts operate.
As I said in an earlier post, they may have kicked the hornets nest and lionized the opposition.
They keep this up and piss off enough of the electorate, they may just end up giving the Republicans a 10-1 majority!
It would be my wager that the legislature does not have the authority to lower the retirement age of judges.
As I said in an earlier post, they may have kicked the hornets nest and lionized the opposition. They keep this up and piss off enough of the electorate, they may just end up giving the Republicans a 10-1 majority
==
Democratic voters with few exceptions have no interest in procedural probity. Jay Jones wishing death on the families of Republican politicians didn’t move the needle much, so some cheesy lawfare won’t.
Correct Art. The Virginia Constitution states how judges can be removed by impeachment. Retroactive retirement is barely disguised impeachment by another name, and would never pass muster in the Virginia Supreme Court. These proposals are desperation ploys by people who got their legal education through You Tube videos, if that.
I’m no lawyer or student of the law, but I do see a CW this way comes.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article6/section9/
==
This is the provision. Evidently the General Assembly can prescribe retirement dates.
The difficulty has been for some time that the Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle of people who are incensed at the idea of political competition and argument. “Our Democracy” means they get their way. All the time. About everything. See Louise Slaughter’s twenty year long campaign to get Rush Limbaugh knocked off AM radio. Invention of ‘constitutional rights’ out of whole cloth, vote fraud, trumped up prosecutions of adversaries, trumped up charges to occupational licensing boards, the use of government grants to finance leftoid ‘activists’, mass importation of illegal aliens, systematic removal of those with alternative viewpoints from the staff of public agencies, &c are merely means to defend their property. No, this will not end well.
Remember, they don’t see laws. They see benefits to their movement or impediments to their movement.
Previously the leaders on the left were smart enough to realize that other people respected laws, even if they themselves did not. So they would cast things in legal terms and try to avoid the most blatant abuses. Each year the newer generation of leftists understands the concept of the rule of law less and less and less (this is related to the other post on historical illiteracy.) So they are more willing to do outlandish and blatantly politically motivated things.
Their current understanding of the law is something like “a bunch of magical incantations that have no actual meaning but which can make people do what I want.” So they make plans like this. Eventually they won’t be able to understand the law even to that extent, at which point their plans are going to be “do what I say, and if you don’t I’ll rile up a mob to kill you.”
Not one Democrat voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Biden said : “Put you’ll in chains.” and burning crosses on your lawn.