I was a lawyer for about 30 years, and I’m picky. I despise bad lawyers. They are both intellectually insulting and professionally offensive. I dealt with a lot of bad lawyers in my time: dishonest ones, devious ones, and a lot of dumb ones. Now, I don’t define a bad lawyer as somebody who just disagrees with me. Literally every lawyer I encountered disagreed with me—that’s how law works. There’s a difference between disagreeing with me and being an idiot. But most of the lawyers out there in the political sphere are idiots.
Now, I need to inject a note of caution because, as you’re well aware, there is always a question that arises when a leftist talks – whether he is an idiot or thinks you are an idiot. In other words, are these lawyers on Twitter stupid, or do they believe that you are stupid enough to believe them? Let’s look at the recent decision in Callais. Contrary to what you’ve been told—which is that the U.S. Supreme Court said black people can’t have representation in Congress—what the Court held is that the Voting Rights Act, which is designed to ensure that everybody has a fair chance to participate in the political process, does not require certain districts to be designed so that only black people can be elected. Note that the black people in these Black districts are always Democrats. If they were black Republicans, the Democrats wouldn’t care, of course. It’s like with illegal aliens. If there were hordes of lawyers flooding our borders and driving down hourly rates, every attorney in America would be complaining that Tom Homan is too much of a sissy and needs to ramp up deportation times 100 plus mine the Rio Grande.
In any case, the Constitution is clear that you can’t discriminate on the basis of race. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. And the statute at issue, the VRA, doesn’t even talk about creating black districts. That’s an invention. So, there’s a rationale behind this decision, one that’s not simply “Republicans hate black people.” But you wouldn’t know that from the legal discourse. Instead, you get the impression from all the idiot lawyers that we’re about to re-enter the era of the Democrat KKK because we are not deciding about representation on the basis of race. It’s like they didn’t even read the decision, but it’s not necessary for them to read the decision—not for the purpose that they have, which is propaganda, not explaining exactly what’s going on. You think that the Constitution, in fact, allows racial districting. That’s a dumb but wrong analysis, but lots of people are dumb and wrong. But they’ve skipped over the part about analyzing what the Court said and went straight to the helping-Democrats-with-their-propaganda-messaging part.
What happened in Virginia is similar in that none of them actually talk about the law. If they talked about the law, normal people might think, “Wait a minute, this decision kind of makes sense.” In fact, the Virginia decision makes a lot of legal sense. When you hold a referendum on an issue, the rules for that referendum apply. That shouldn’t be a surprise—all elections have rules, although Democrats don’t seem to like that. They prefer Calvinball, in which the rules change to let them win every time. But that’s not how the law works; that’s how children and communists work.
So what happened in Virginia? Well, a few years ago, they changed the Commonwealth’s constitution to require that a nonpartisan board control redistricting. That itself is constitutionally suspect, but that’s not an issue here in this case. Well, with the Republicans fighting back against Democrat gerrymanders—yeah, the Democrats started it, no matter how much they lie about who threw the first punch—the Democrats decided that they needed to redistrict Virginia to score an extra four seats. However, that pesky constitutional amendment that they supported got in the way. With a very narrow majority after that weird apple-doll-faced CIA agent wine woman got elected, they decided they were going to give it a try. Now they’re very specific about how you must have an election between the time the legislature proposes a constitutional change and the time the people vote on it. That’s right there in the Constitution. It gives the people of Virginia the chance to tell their legislature whether they do or do not want to proceed with a referendum. Well, since elections are now like four months long, when the Democrats proposed it, the intervening election was already going on, and 1.3 million Virginians had already voted. You see the problem—the intent is to let the people have a say through an intervening election, and those who already voted don’t get to have their say. Remember, every vote counts, according to Democrats, except when it’s inconvenient. In any case, the Virginia Supreme Court decided that the word “election” means election and therefore invalidated the referendum because the Democrats did not have an intervening election. There were also a whole bunch of other reasons it could have thrown it out—other violations of the rules—but one of the principles is that the court stops when it gets an answer. So those issues were never addressed.
Of course, you never hear this from the Democrats. They never tell you what’s going on. They never try to explain how “Oh, it was perfectly proper to have an intervening election when 1.3 million people had already voted and were effectively disenfranchised,” because that’s obviously insane and ridiculous. Instead, their answer is usually that the Virginia Supreme Court is part of the giant right-wing conspiracy. The best answer any of them ever gave is to complain about a “technicality”—the “technicality” being that the Democrats violated the law. Well, I guess that’s a kind of “technicality,” since the law is by nature technical. In any case, the stupid-versus-lying question arises yet again.
See, here’s the thing about the law. You either have the law, or you have something else to determine how power is exercised. And there’s only one something else. That’s raw power. If you don’t have the law, you just have the will of the guy who’s stronger. And, unfortunately for the Democrats, the guys with the guns are always stronger. They should know that, since they love Chairman Mao, who famously observed that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Right now, we have all the guns. We have all the training. We have all the cards, except one. We don’t always have the law. Sometimes the law requires us to do things we don’t want to, and we submit—for now. You see, the law is not just a sword. It’s a shield. And the big mistake the Democrats are making is that they don’t understand that they’re the ones who really need that shield. But if they keep going the way they’re going, they may well find out.
The hard way.
Ahoy Townhall VIP Members! Join us on a conservative cruise that isn’t just a bunch of obsolete losers guzzling Zima on the Lido Deck! Kurt, Larry O’Connor, Scott Jennings and more are sailing the Caribbean this November on an epic voyage of discovery and owning the libs. All aboard this Salem/Townhall event! Sign up now!
Read Kurt’s new bestseller in the Kelly Turnbull/People’s Republic conservative action novel series, Panama Red, and follow Kurt on Twitter @KurtSchlichter!
My super-secret email address is kurt.schlichter@townhall.com
