Virginia Democrats Are Panicking Over This Ruling

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]Well, ladies and gentlemen, Democrats are very, very mad at the ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court where they decided in a 4-3 decision that uh the whole jerrymander process they went through was actually a violation of the Constitution, which shouldn't have come as a huge surprise because the lower court in Virginia had already decided that and as we had the entire debate on this thing, we had argued that it was unconstitutional and surprisingly enough, we had said it was unconstitutional for the very reasons the court ended up deciding it was unconstitutional. But none of that matters. Democrats are furious. So, Democrats all got together and said, "Look, we don't like this decision. We think it's wrong. We think it's horrible. We hate Donald Trump, but we're going to go ahead and follow the process. We're going to go ahead and and make sure that it is done correctly this time and in strict keeping with the Constitution." Oh, wait. No, that's not what they did at all. No. Instead, what they're deciding to do is this. They are going to reverse the Supreme Court of Virginia by lowering the retirement age to 54, retire all the justices, and then just replace them with liberal justices that will rule the way they want to save democracy apparently.

[00:01:03]Apparently, that's that's the way that you save democracy these days. Now, here's what needs to be understood.

[00:01:08]Okay, the 43 decision that was written by Arthur uh Kelsey, Justice Kely Kelce basically found that again the entire process for the gerrymander or the entire process for the constitutional amendment violated the constitution of Virginia. Now he pointed out a couple of things. One of the things that he pointed out was is that in order to amend the Constitution of Virginia, the legislature has to pass language through the House and the Senate for the constitutional amendment. Then you have to have an intervening election. And then after that intervening election, they have to pass the exact same language in the form of a joint resolution.

[00:01:42]Now, okay. Well, there was an intervening election, Nick. So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is is that Democrats now allow for 45 days of early voting in Virginia. Now, typically that wouldn't be a problem because the way constitutional amendments, and by the way, this is the fourth constitutional amendment that the new Democrat majority was pushing. The other three they did the correct way. I don't like the way they did it, but they technically followed the Constitution and the law. They passed it during regular session. It went through a committee process and they did it all before the intervening election started. Okay? But this time the the intervening election had already begun. Why? Because Democrats wanted 45 days of early voting. So over a million Virginiaians had already voted in the intervening election when all of a sudden Democrats using a special session that was designed for the budget, not for introducing new constitutional amendments, not for introducing new policy that had nothing to do with the budget, right? They got m they didn't like what was going on in Texas. And so the Virginia Democrats decided, we're going to call everyone back into special session, not for the budget, not for the purpose of the special session, but to ram through a congressional amendment, a joint resolution, right, without any of the typical debate, without any of the typical process that we go through.

[00:02:58]They're just going to do that in the middle of an intervening election. Well, well, we all got up on the floor and we said, you can't you can't do this for a couple of reasons. One, the Constitution says intervening election, it's already going on. over a million Virginiaians have voted. Two, you haven't given the clerks of the court 90 days before the intervening election to put out uh the information about what the constitutional amendment actually is. You haven't done that either. A a third argument would be and oh by the way, the language you have used to describe the constitutional amendment is blatantly partisan, which is also a violation of Virginia law. You are supposed to use nonpartisan, non-biased language. You're only supposed to use simple language to describe what it does. But that's not what Democrats did. Democrats asked everybody in Virginia, do you want to vote to restore fairness? What did restoring what is restoring fairness looks like? Well, let me go ahead and show you. So, if we look at what the current if we look at what the current map of Virginia was, it was this six Democrats, five Republicans. Here's the map for how uh Virginiaians voted by county for president. 51.82% for Camala, 46.06% 06% for Trump. Here's how the counties um voted. Oh, but Nick, counties, you know, we're talking about congressional districts. Okay, here's how the congressional districts voted, right? And then here's what the maps actually are. So, as you can see, this is a pretty accurate reflection of how Virginiaians vote. Pretty accurate reflection. What did they want to change it to this?

[00:04:26]They wanted to change it to a 10 Democrat, one Republican vote. This was restoring fairness.

[00:04:32]Now again, I don't I don't care if you think this is restoring fairness or not.

[00:04:36]You are not allowed to put that kind of language into the um the ballot referendum in order to try to sway public opinion. You you can spend as much money as you want and Democrats did. They spent $64 million, right?

[00:04:50]Somewhere around that 6466 to try to sway public opinion, but you can do it in the middle of an intervening election. You can't do it 90 days before they do this. And then then on top of all of that, did they put it in the November uh run like you typically would for they put it in the November election cycle? No. They they held a special election cycle in the middle of April and then they gave all the people they thought were most likely to vote for them like teachers unions and stuff like that the day off of work so bureaucrats and teachers and all they could go out and vote. So like across the board this this either fell into the realm of really really shady or blatantly unconstitutional.

[00:05:25]And again, a lower court decided this before they spent $64 million, right? We had argued against this before they spent 60. We everyone had said, "This is a clear violation of of Virginia Constitution." And Dem said, "We don't care. We're going to do it anyways." And then when the court overturned him, they got they got really mad about it because that's a threat to democracy.

[00:05:46]So understand that the the court didn't make some wildeyed decision. They they basically argued this on process. And then Kelsey said one other thing. Kelsey also basically said, "Look, you you even put into the ballot language restore fairness. There is nothing fair about the way you did this or the maps that you drew. There's nothing fair about that." And in fact, the whole reason and and this whole will of the people, right, they rammed this through unconstitutionally, spent a pile of money, held it in a um held it in a month where nobody typically goes and votes on constitutional amendments, right? And then it it passed by a little under 52% of the vote. so barely squeaked by in order to overturn a constitutional amendment that had passed in 2020 that passed with over 65% of the vote. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to stop right there because if you want to ensure um that we actually have a country to preserve, one of the things that's critical is making sure your children are educated on what it actually means to be an American.

[00:06:43]What not all our not only what our rights are, but what our duties and responsibilities are. And that's where Brave Books comes in because Brave Books publishes pro God, pro-America stories which teach courage, which teach faith, which teach love of country, right? And and they provide these services to kids.

[00:07:00]They provide these services not only to kids but to parents. Because let's face it, how many times have you either turned on a show or got your kids a book that you thought should have been fairly safe only to find out later that there were messages in there, there were themes in there that you would not approve of as a parent? Well, with Bravebooks, you don't got to worry about that. And right now you can go to bravebooks.com/nick and you use code nick, you're going to get 20% off your first order, a new book every month, plus free access to Brave's parent vetted streaming platform. Again, how many times have you wanted to just be able to let your kids watch a good wholesome show while you did some work, clean stuff around the house, wrapped Christmas presents, wherever it was, but once again, the favorite show that you thought was safe for your kids all of a sudden has gone woke. You don't got to worry about that with Brave's parent vetted streaming platform, right? So, go to bravebooks.com/nick.

[00:07:49]Use code nick for 20% off and start building a strong foundation for your kids today with their library, with the things they have access to watch. Again, we need a generation of kids that understand both their rights and responsibilities to God and to their country. Brave Books is here to help you to do it. Go check them out. And and and and this goes we're going to we're going to talk a little bit about this whole will of the people argument that they're using because again if you were really frustrated with the Supreme Court decision, what you would do is you would argue the merits. You would say that no, the decision they came to was inappropriate. But here's the problem.

[00:08:19]If you look at the dissenting opinion, the dissenting opinion basically says, well, election just election day and state and federal law just means the day of the election.

[00:08:28]And and what what what Kelsey was arguing is, wait a second, the whole purpose of having an intervening election is so that Virginiaians can make an informed decision about who will rule the general assembly when a constitutional amendment is is being considered when 1.3 million Virginiaians have already voted before this constitutional amendment was even a thing. You have essentially deprived them of their ability to weigh in in that election cycle. And and keep in mind the original bill that the Democrats are changing here had overwhelming bipartisan support, right?

[00:08:59]An absolute majority of Democrats voted for the constitutional amendment that that took us from the legislature just drawing the lines to this in to this commission drawing the lines.

[00:09:09]In fact, Democrats, I remember being in the Virginia General Assembly when we all voted on this and Democrats had argued for years that this is what we needed to do. And then all of a sudden, some of them got a lot of some of them wanted to reverse position as soon as they got the majorities. Then they didn't want to pass it anymore. So, this kind of goes to show you how ridiculous some of this is. But anyways, they argued on process and then Kesley even pointed out like the language you use was totally inappropriate because the maps are nowhere near fair. They're nowhere near an accurate resemblance of the way that Virginiaians actually vote based off of the regions. I mean, you you drew five congressional districts that touch Fairfax County.

[00:09:47]This this is absurd on a number of levels. And and again, the only thing the Democrats could could argue back with is, well, election day just means the day of. Oh, really? Okay. So, so none of the other votes before election day count? None of the other vote.

[00:10:01]That's is that what you're arguing? No, of course they're not arguing that. The the reason why in state and federal law it said election day is election day is because it for you know decades upon decades upon decades with the ex with the exception of maybe absentee ballots election day was always election day.

[00:10:18]It's Democrats that continually push this out into earlier election and early voting and mailin voting and everything else. And so essentially Democrats now are falling victim to the results of their own policy preferences. and they don't like that because they want it to be 45 days of election day when it suits them and they want it to only just be one day when it suits them. Well, you can't have it both ways and and and Kelsey essentially pointed this out.

[00:10:41]Now, immediately following this um you know, Democrats came in within 72 hours of the ruling, Virginia Democrats were on a call led by House Minority Leader Hakee Jeff. What does Hakeem Jeff have to do with any of this? He's not from Virginia. He never served in the Virginia legislature. He's never served as a member of Congress from Virginia.

[00:10:57]He's just the House minority leader. So why is Hakee Jeff on a call discussing a plan to lower the mandatory minimum age for Virginia Supreme Court justices from 73 to 54? By the way, lowering it all the way to 54 would eliminate would automatically retire every uh sitting member of the Virginia Supreme Court, right? So they're going after everybody.

[00:11:17]Why Why would he do this? Why would he be on this call? Maybe maybe this has less to do with the will of the people and more to do with the fact that Hakee Jeff authorized I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million to go from the funds that he controlled in order to help win back Congress and to help his Democrats in difficult seats all over the country. They poured that into Virginia to try to pick up four Democrat seats because this Jerry Mander would have given him four Democrat additional Democrat seats. So he poured tens of millions of dollars into it and now he's mad. Now he's mad that his money was essentially wasted. I'm willing to bet there's a lot of members of his caucus that are furious with him that he spent tens of millions of dollars of essentially their money to go into this sham jerrymander in Virginia that the court quickly overruled.

[00:12:04]And so now they're coming in and even Sua Subraman. So he is he is he's a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates, former member of the Virginia Senate, and former and now a current member of uh the Democrat caucus for the Virginia um representation of the House of Representatives. Now, here's what you need to know about Sua Submana. He said everyone has got to have a strong stomach right now. And then he claimed we have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts altogether. We're going to get into whether or not that's true here in a second, but first of all, let's look at this. The reason why I want to point this out is Sua Subramanion who is considered a very kind of moderate kind of nice friendly guy. He's not on the floor making a bunch of fiery speeches calling everyone racists and sexist. He just doesn't do that sort of thing. He is a moderate kind of milktoast Democrat. He is arguing he is arguing for the Virginia General Assembly to essentially reconvene and just retire the entire Virginia Supreme Court as a result of this decision. And the reason why I'm pointing this out is because you need to understand this is mainstream Democrat thought. This is this is not wild crazy Redditors in their mom's basin. This is this is mainstream Democrat thought. We don't like the decision we got from the Virginia Supreme Court. We don't care that it was closely tied with with legal precedent, with historical precedent. We don't care about any of that because keep in mind, what are Democrats saying over and over and over on the news? Are they saying we think the court got it wrong because they misinterpreted the Constitution?

[00:13:32]No. They're saying the court overruled the will of the people because after all, we poured $64 million into a referendum, barely won. But that's the will of the people. So, the will of the people is supreme, right? No, it isn't.

[00:13:49]We don't have mob rule in this country as much as Democrats might want.

[00:13:54]We don't have mob rule. you can't just do whatever you want. If the majority tomorrow decided they wanted slavery back, you know, the way they did when Democrats were running the South.

[00:14:05]Well, we would clearly point to the 14th 13th amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution would say, "Look, we don't care if you have simple majorities that want to do something like this. People are entitled to certain rights. There is a certain process which governs the way that we change our laws, which governs the way that we amend our constitution in order to make sure it's done properly. You violated that.

[00:14:28]And so the fact that you cook the books doesn't absolve. You don't get to go now and say, well, you know, 51% of the population voted with, so therefore it's okay. Therefore, the Constitution doesn't matter.

[00:14:41]This this is why I say when the Democrats talk about our democracy, they don't mean us. and they don't understand that we live in a constitutional republic. Do we use democratic processes to decide certain things? Yes. Do we use democratic processes to decide everything, which is to say that a simple majority gets to decide everything? No, we don't. We never have.

[00:15:01]And yet, Democrats want to pretend like that's the norm. Democrats want to pretend like that's the morally superior position that whatever the majority wants, they get and that's it. And we don't got to listen to anybody else. And if you don't do what we want, we'll completely throw out the entire Supreme Court and replace it with seven activist judges that will interpret things exactly the way we