Democrats consider plan to wipe conservatives off Virginia Supreme Court: Report
The article uses inflammatory language ('wipe out,' 'wipe conservatives off,' 'court packing,' 'banana republic') that frames the proposal as illegitimate while centering Republican condemnation. Democratic justifications are presented briefly and without equal rhetorical force, while Republican responses dominate the latter half with charged language ('tyrant kings,' 'puppets,' 'rigged'). The framing presupposes Democratic malfeasance rather than neutral explanation of a judicial reform proposal.
Primary voices: academic or expert, elected official, media outlet, state or recognized government
- This article does not address the substantive merits of the original Virginia Supreme Court redistricting decision or constitutional questions about its validity.
- This article does not provide Democratic framings of court composition or explain the 10-1 redistricting referendum outcome that prompted the court challenge.
- This article does not contextualize whether the proposed retirement age change would be legally unprecedented or how it compares to court-reform proposals in other states.
- This article does not address potential constitutional limits on retroactive retirement age changes for sitting judges.
Framing may sharpen if Virginia Democrats formally introduce legislation or if the proposal receives judicial review, clarifying constitutional feasibility and political viability.
Charged languageEstablishment framingBoth-sides framing
Democrats are reportedly considering a plan to lower the retirement age of Virginia Supreme Court justices in an attempt to wipe out all sitting judges and replace them with people more likely to pass the 10-1 redistricting referendum.
“They have a simple—and lawful—solution: Send the entire court into early retirement,” Quinn Yeargain, an Associate Professor of Law at the Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in The Down Ballot. “There are virtually no other options—and none with as good a chance of success as this one.”
The New York Times was the first to report lawmakers had been told of Yeargain’s plan.
Having a mandatory retirement age for judges is not uncommon. More than 30 states have mandatory retirement ages or consequences for staying on the bench past a certain age. The ages in other states range from 70 to 90 years old, according to Ballopedia.
Yeargain’s idea is to have the General Assembly put forward an appropriations bill setting the retirement age for judges in Virginia at 54 — the age of the youngest judge who joined the majority opinion to strike down the redistricting referendum — effectively wiping the conservatives off the bench. Currently, Virginia has a mandatory retirement age of 73.
“Any member who attains 73 years of age shall be retired 20 days after the convening of the next regular session of the General Assembly following his seventy-third birthday,” the Code of Virginia says.
In Virginia, the General Assembly also appoints judges, and Democrats have the majority in both chambers. Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) would have to sign off on the bill.
Yeargain suggests in his column that Virginia Democrats should slip the bill into the yearly budget, due on June 30, in an attempt to pass the referendum before the midterm elections.
Virginia Democrats reportedly discussed the idea with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on a strategy call over the weekend, according to the New York Times.
“We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts altogether,” Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) said on the call, according to the outlet. “We know based on that, Republicans would explore every single option possible to move this forward.”
The idea was not accepted by all the Democrats on the call. Former Rep. James P. Moran was a bit skeptical, calling the move “a bridge too far.”
“We do have to keep our credibility,” Moran said. “We have to do things that pass the legitimacy test.”
Republicans are fuming at the prospect and condemning Democrats for even considering the bill.
“Democrats claim to be the “defenders of Democracy” but they are the real tyrant kings,” Rep. Jen Kiggins (R-VA), a representative in a district in limbo with the new map, wrote on X. “They don’t like the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling on their gerrymandered maps so what’s their answer? Fire the judges and put in puppets who will rule the way they want.”
“Sure, if Abigail Spanberger wants to crater her already historically low approval rating into the 30s, go right ahead,” former Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares wrote on X. “Nothing says ‘rule of law’ like court packing the Va Supreme Court for saying NO to your illegal and unconstitutional gerrymandering scheme.”
“Democrats are threatening to PACK THE COURT with partisan liberals to ram through their rigged map anyways,” Virginia GOP posted on X. “Just more proof that Democrats never cared about ‘fairness’ or “democracy.” Only their own lust for power.”
“That is banana republic, total institution-destroying MADNESS!” Washington Examiner’s Guy Benson said on FOX News. “The New York Times is reporting about these machinations at least being discussed by some Democrats at high levels, one of which involves taking out the entire state Supreme Court, just basically going back retroactively and saying, oh, you’re all too old. The new cutoff is 54!”
Benson went on to say, “If they seriously consider either of these things, it is seismic and like a red flag moment for the democracy that they pretend to care about. Don’t do this.”
When political analyst Larry Sabato was asked if he would support this attempt to clean out the Virginia Supreme Court, he responded, “I wouldn’t.”
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, sarcastically responded to Sabato’s post, saying, “These people are having a normal 48 hours….”
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Sign in to leave a comment.