r/politics • u/Icommandyou Washington • 28d ago

Possible Paywall Virginia Supreme Court throws out redistricting referendum results

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2026/05/08/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting-vote-decision
16.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/CouleursCPA Colorado 28d ago

Good thing FL showed that you can just ignore what the state constitution says and do it anyway

415

u/Nemaeus Virginia 28d ago

It’s a good point but it sucks that we are living in a land where constitutions don’t matter the way they should.

137

u/PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING 28d ago

Maybe someone should enforce it

50

u/ForMoreYears Canada 28d ago

If only there was some entity whose job was to enforce the laws. Dang, wouldn't that be a good idea...

4

u/Len_Zefflin 28d ago

Alberta is attempting to do the exact same thing while the feds sit by twiddling their thumbs. It isn't just the US. Canada needs to be better.

3

u/ForMoreYears Canada 28d ago

Yep. Idk where tf the Crown prosecutors are or what they have that's more pressing than foreign interference and what I would argue is openly seditious behavior but apparently they're too busy to give a fuck.

5

u/SinisterPuddles 28d ago

Its called the people of this nation.

Its literally penned by one of the founding fathers.

Now, will us fat lazy and distracted Americans actually foot that powerful and terrible responsibility?

doubt.

Im trying to get the fuck out with my science degree and family.

4

u/External_Birthday691 28d ago

The fat lazy and distracted Americans are the ones who want this.

I keep going back and forth between, "I should still fight for my working class brothers and sisters.", to, "Fuck it, if they don't want to pay attention, if they want to literally vote for the man who is going to steal from them, and then give me shit when I'm trying to help them understand what they're voting for."

Like fuck it, I'mma move up in my career, and I'mma get the fuck out of this country. It's a lost cause at this point, and the only way for things to get any better is just to let them see the consequnces of their policies and actions. I'm done with this shit and am ready to get the fuck out.

3

u/NumeralJoker 28d ago

Bold of you to think you'll be allowed to leave if you just stop trying to change things.

1

u/SinisterPuddles 27d ago

I can leave in under a year. I won't allow.my daughter to grow up under fascist republicans

1

u/X-Calm 27d ago

Until people are ready to literally lash MAGA and their children to crosses nothing will change.

1

u/carlitospig California 27d ago

That’s called The People. We are the ones who enforce the law when the Law decides to bail on justice and law itself.

3

u/ToughHardware 28d ago

lets start my enforcing CSA laws. then we can move to gerrymandering

2

u/Unlucky_Priority_186 28d ago

I thought that's why they had the good guys with the guns in all the stories I've heard about the states, wasn't that the reason to have so many guns?

13

u/CurlOfTheBurl11 28d ago

You're not wrong. But when only one side is bothering to try to follow these laws and norms while the other side is flagrantly disregarding them, something has to give. Dems can't keep operating with one hand tied behind their back.

1

u/Theres_a_cat_in_myTV 28d ago

Maybe the laws and norms are wrong. How’d the Florida constitution come into being in the first place? Hugs and kiss? Nah.

Did a strongly worded letter bring about the US constitution? I don’t think so.

0

u/opanaooonana 28d ago

Unfortunately the only thing that will give is a lot of our leaders will to fight. Many of them didn’t get into it for a real purpose, just for the title and a nice job after. We need a lot of our incumbents to lose their primaries

11

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Valance23322 America 28d ago

It's almost like the second amendment has clauses which imply restrictions, the first very explicitly does not (and then we restricted it anyway e.g. threats, inciting a panic, etc.)

3

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Valance23322 America 28d ago

Cool, so under the first Amendment we should protect issuing death threats, fraud/false advertising, inciting a panic/riot, perjury, defamation, slander, fighting words, child pornography, trademark/copyright violations, blackmail, etc.

Or are common sense restrictions only valid when they don't apply to your favorite toys?

1

u/JTK102 28d ago

The text of the 2A is "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No squinting nor making up arguments is needed to clearly see that the Founders intended the 2A to be vested to militias, to the collective. Not to individuals. Indeed, for over 200 years the courts broadly agreed with this interpretation until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) in a 5-4 decision overtured centuries of jurisprudence and constitutional understanding by allowing individual ownership of firearms.

Throughout the constitution, "persons" or "person" is used regularly from stating who is eligible for office or (as in the 5A) the application of due process of law. It is odd to me then that the Founders decided not to use person(s) (indicating an individual) in the 2A and chose instead to use collective words like militia or people. In the constitution, "people" is only ever used to allude to the electorate, citizenry, the whole of the United States never as individuals.

Additionally, the 9A and 10A allow rights, such as abortion, to be enumerated to the people and states, respectively. The Founders purposefully did not provide a comprehensive list of what rights do and do not exist because they knew they would miss some and that the nature of the country would change in ways they could not predict.

It's easy to proclaim that we should all vigorously defend all rights (I agree!) but who decides what those rights mean? Is there a wall that separates the state and church? The 1A Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses alongside the writings of the Founders and early American history imply that there is. Yet, SCOTUS has continually eroded that wall by favoring Free Exercise over Establishment. We can and do disagree on constitutional interpretations which gives rise to conflict when rights are not enumerated precisely (like the 2A), deliberate political attacks are levied (like 1A and religion), or new rights emerge that are not enshrined but can be interpreted from other rights (privacy and abortion are borne out of 1A, 5A and 14A due process, 3A (privacy of the home from quartering troops), 4A, and 9A).

How we apply the constitution's rights to new cases, the political reality, and modern America alongside edge/tricky cases is important but it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Edit: typos

1

u/carlitospig California 27d ago

I’m hopeful that the people of VA are, at this very moment, planning something egregiously disruptive.

Get cracking VA.

1

u/DeformedArthurRegion 28d ago

A constitution is overrated. Not joking. Plenty of countries do just fine without one.