Virginia judge blocks gerrymandered maps | Hour 2

What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron. Go to thepetecleanershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet, and again, thank you so much for your support. So a couple things out of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Number one, I saw yesterday that they had voted to ban open carry. The Democrat controlled legislature banned open carry. That's going to go to the governor's desk where she will sign it. After Remember, they made Virginia a sanctuary state, meaning if a criminal illegal alien gets arrested, they will not be turned over to Ice. Right, So this is like, this is the suicidal empathy. There's no guardrail here. It's you have more empathy for the criminal, and so you're going to protect the criminal from any kind of quote disproportionate. Punishment, right, and you sympathize with them. And look, I would say, if you are of that mind, okay, like you're super empathetic and you want to. Know the root causes and all of that stuff. Okay, Please then go find a job in some field that's not government or police work, okay, because. You're just not built for this. Other people are Other people say no, you break a law, you get arrested, you get deported, okay, because you're in the country illegally, and you did something to get yourself arrested. You broke a law, got arrested, okay. And then so you layer those two things together, and what is the message to the normies. What's the message to law abiding citizens in Virginia? It is, if you are here illegally, we're gonna let these you know, violent defenders back out onto the street. We got cash lists, bail like all of that stuff. Right, We're gonna turn the criminals loose. And by the way, we're gonna try to disarm you from protecting yourself. This is the Democrat platform. Also, they've been platforming a guy named Hassan Piker, who is this YouTuber who abuses dogs and you know, calls Jewish people all sorts of terrible names. Wants to see conservatives murdered advocates for it on his stream, but he's like the number one Twitch platform streamer, and so they don't ban him. They ban other people for saying way less worse things, but he gets to stay on his He does like an eight hour a day stream. It's stupid. I mean, he's a Nepo baby. So okay, that's who the Democrats are platforming. That's who they're you know, campaigning with. He was paling around with Zoron Mamdani and others, and that's where they're going. And they cannot police themselves internally inside their party because leftism can never go too far right. I will get into that at a later date. But yesterday their unconstitutional power grab via the referendum to temporarily change their constitution so they can they can draw themselves. Ten out of eleven districts right voters approved it fifty one to forty eight percent, So yay, we get to disenfranchise half of the population. I covered this in depth yesterday, and I said yesterday that the lawyers are already at the courthouse on this and like I went home, I fed the cat, played with them a little bit, and powered up the computer. Did say, it's like an within an hour. I think after I got off air, a judge had already blocked it. And this shouldn't have been a surprise because this judge had blocked this earlier. So here's the story from the hill, Virginia Attorney General j Jones, Democrat, who fantasizes about murdering Republican children, having them die in the arms of their mother, so then the mother would agree to ban all the guns. That guy won, And that really was the canary in the coal mine, right, Like, looking back on it now from a distance, we can say that the fact that Jay Jones actually one means that there were you have a critical mass of voters in Virginia that are totally fine with wishing political violence on your opponents, right, and that should have been the sign. Oh. Also, though you had a whole bunch of people during the last election cycle a couple of months ago, where the Democrats won, you had a lot of people that stayed home, they did not vote. And I was watching It's called Making the Argument is the name of the podcast. It's a YouTube show and it's hosted by Nick Fredis. Nick Fredis is a former Army ranger and former state lawmaker. For like thirteen fourteen years or something, right, So he was in the house and he's like recently out. I think maybe like two years ago he got out and he launched this YouTube channel, and so when talking about Virginia stuff like, he is a great resource. But he was going off on this yesterday and he said, and he's a Republican conservative and he said he is so fed up with the people that come up to him in Republican circles and say things like the parties are the same, and he said, the reason why you say that, he says, people who want to feel morally superior by not doing anything to correct the problems. They're the ones who say this, right. They want to be able to make themselves feel better for not doing anything. And I've asked people this too over the years, when people call in and they complain about something, and I say, okay, well what are you doing to help fix it? And I've had people say, well, I'm calling your show, like, well, that's not going to help fix it. Okay. People actually have to get involved. And this is a small example, but when I moved into the house we're in now, it's an hoa community, and there were some problems. This was four years ago. Home. Yeah, about four years ago. We moved in and. When the new year started and they were taking applications for people to volunteer to help, I volunteered to help. And so I've been doing that now for like three years and trying to write the ship, and we've got a lot of things fixed. My proudest achievement was I introduced Robert's Rules of Order into the meetings because they would get they would get a little crazy. Okay, So now we run the meetings like actual meetings, right, and we got a lot of We have accomplished a lot. But you, like, I've said this for years too, that if good competent people don't volunteer their time and effort, you will be governed by bad incompetent people because they will do it right. You have to have like people have to have to get involved, right. And so when when he hears this line that the parties are all the same, he says, you're just saying that because you want to feel morally superior while not doing anything to fix the problem. And then he said, well, people will say, well I voted for Trump, and He's like, well, great, thanks a lot for that one vote every four years. Appreciate the help, right, But if that's all you're doing. And then you're complaining that they're taking my guns, they're redistricting our districts and stuff like they're doing all of these things, and you're just saying all the parties are all the same. And he's like, this should be proof. He's I guarantee you the Republican Party would not have been doing the gun grab bill, the open carry ban, the sanctuary city statewide policy. Right, they would not be doing that. These are things that the Republicans would not be doing. Yes, they would be doing other things that would anger us absolutely. And he is an advocate for and he did it himself. His wife did it too. Is to run in primaries against Republicans who are not voting conservatively, like Lindsey Graham for example, like that guy in South Carolina. Like everybody complains about it, But how is it he keeps winning? Right? This guy John Curtis out of Utah? Does he win? How are there no primary challengers against this guy? Right? John Cornyn Texas, same thing he ran, he's he he was running on amnesty, wanting to give amnesty. So and they They spent like. Seven hundred million dollars or something like that to try to save John Cornyn in that race against Ken Paxton down there. It's going to a runoff. Yet they couldn't scratch together, you know, ten million, twenty million or something for the Virginia redistricting referendum, right to stop that Jerrymander. So primary the people who are in safe districts who aren't voting conservatively, Like you have to be able to make a distinction between a Republican that wins in a purple district, a swing district or state. Right, they they're going to be more sensitive to that kind of pressure from the center and the left. You got to give them some space. But people on if you're running in an r PLU US thirty district, like, why are you voting for anything that's not conservative? You know, stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things, to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of our past while transcending generations. They help us process the meaning of life, and our stories are told through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video started in nineteen ninety seven and Minhill, North Carolina. It was the first company to provide this valuable service converting images, photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos and albums. The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative Video will go over all of the details with you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays, or just your family stories, all told through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They are your life to through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you, and they will tell others to come who you are. Visit creativideo dot com. Back to this piece at the Hill, Virginia Attorney General J. Jones said he will appeal an injunction on the state's redistricting referendum approved by voters. Quote as I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken and an activist judge should not have veto power over. The people's vote. Okay, first off, this judge I know nothing about the judge Jack Hurley Junior. He's from Tazewell County, he's a circuit court judge. This ruling is not an activist ruling. This same judge ruled against your bs unconstitutional process twice prior. This is consistent. He said you're doing this unconstitutionally and tried to stop them when the plaintiffs came and made their argument, and then he was overruled by higher courts. And everybody's pointing to this, like Virginia Supreme Court twice approved the referendum, including after Hurley's first attempt to block the measure. Yes, that's true, but why why did the Virginia State Supreme Court overturn his block his injunction? Well, I did what so many journalists don't do, apparently, which is to go read the court opinion. This would have been from March fourth, twenty twenty six, the State Supreme Court. They point out, this is not an ordinary case. They say, for over a century, we have recognized the well settled principle regulating the jurisdiction of courts of equity that but such courts will not, with few exceptions and join the holding of an election or interfere by its process of injunction with the holding of an election. Okay, so what are they saying there. That's a quote from an earlier ruling. They're not going to get involved in a court case if there is an election pending, right, They're not going to step in and say something about that election while it's ongoing. Okay, Why because if it lost, if the no vote won, then it wouldn't then the case would be moot. By the way, that word is mootot, not m ute. That's mute, which means quiet. Moot means it's irrelevant. Right, If the Democrats had not won that vote, then the case would be moot. They say, the principle does not mean that judicial review of allegedly unlawful elections ceases to exist, though it only means that, as a prudential matter, Virginia courts generally should not prematurely and join an upcoming election, in other words, to stop it. Okay. They then cite one of their earlier opinions in these election related this redistricting effort. They said, the amending of the Constitution is the making of a permanent law for the people of the state by which they are to be governed in the future, and the courts cannot interfere to stop any of the proceedings while this permanent law is in process of being made. If the amendment is not adopted, of course, no question will ever come before the Court. If, upon completion of the proceedings, the validity of the amendment is assailed on the ground that the several provisions of the Constitution have not been complied with, then the Court can pass upon the validity of the amendment. In other words, if the no votes had won, we would not be hearing this case because it'd be moot if it wins, because they made this earlier ruling before the. Vote the other day. But if it wins, well, then we absolutely can weigh in on this. So it's not like the Court made a ruling on the merits of the arguments from the plaintiffs, right because the plaintiffs laid out their case. I went over it yesterday that the first passage was invalid because the amendment was taken up during a special session that was convened specifically for the twenty twenty four budget, and then they shoehorned this thing, this jerrymandered map. They shoehorned this into the special session. That's against the constitution. You can't do that if you're doing a special session, you have to identify what you're going to be covering, and they did not include a jerrymanderin of the maps, and so you would if you want to change what the session is going to be about, then you need a two thirds vote to do so, and they never did that. There is also the passage. After the first passage of the of the legislation, then it's supposed to go back to the General Assembly at its first regular session for the second reading, basically second passage, but that can't occur until there is a general election in between, okay, So it's designed to space out to you know, extend this time frame. If you're going to be doing a constitutional amendment, you can't just rush it through like they did. The constitution is set up to specifically avoid the very thing Democrats just did. Okay, So they didn't follow that law either. And that's the nature of all of the plaints, complaints that this judge has been ruling on and he's been blocking and the State Supreme Court said it's premature. But if it passes, we're definitely coming back and looking at this from the text line. The Hellian says, I am in Smith's City or county. I'm not sure c t y probably county, Smith County, but it's spelled with a y. Would that be Smyth County. And Tazewell is right around the corner taz like Tasmanian devil. Oh, he's saying, I'm pronouncing taze weell incorrectly. It's so taz e w e l L so tazzy weell, tazziwell, tazziwell county. Thank you, Hellyan for the correction. Tazzy well, is I guess the pronunciation there, Todd, Welcome to the program. Hello Todd, Hey, Hey, Hey, what's up? Hey, buddy. So it's not tazzi well, it's taz where rhymes with jazz. Now I did rhyme taz with jazz, but you said tazz well, there isn't. Well what am I supposed to do with the e. That's in there? It is a silent e. There's no such thing as a silent e. The e the e. That's why I called it tasee well, because the E modifies the A. But it's just like every other word in the English language. There's fourteen different pronunciations and only one is correct. So I can see. Yeah, the Great Commonwealth. It is as well. Right, but if you if you acknowledge that there are all sorts of pronunciations, then it seems like you're giving me the green light to call it tazzy. Well, it's the difference between Beaufort and Beaufort. Which is correct? Well, it depends on well, are you talking about Buford, the one with the D or the Beaufort Beaufort, same spelling, two different states, right, Yeah, I still don't know. I call them all Beaufort. I call them all Buford because I yeah, because I don't. I can never keep straight which one is whichoche. Yeah, yeah, it's taswell, and it is Smith County not Smith County. They need to work on their spelling up there. I'm just gonna go. They need to work on maybe drop all of the legislation that they're trying to ram through and maybe like go through and correct some of the spelling on their town names. There's a lot that gotta work. Concur of course, being in North Carolina with MEBN, we probably have no stones to throw here. All right, I appreciate it, Tom, thank you? All right? Uh, I'm right or die for Tazzywell, no, I'm I'm just kidding. Look, if you can't have fun with names like what's left here? People, Mitch on the text line says that judge better be careful. Jay Jones will wish him and his family dead. Yeah. I wonder if Jay Jones is sending text messages to the judge in this case. Okay, So the judge that had previously said that the Virginia legis is violating the state constitution in multiple ways and try to stop the referendum from occurring, he got overruled back in March, early March, when the initial complaints were filed. He heard the evidence. He made his ruling basically an injunction against the election. Can't hold it the state Supreme Court. They then take the appeal and they say, there's a long standing principle that we don't that the judiciary does not enjoin an election, and so we're going to let it ride. We are not speaking to the merits of the case though. This is just a timing thing, right, So because the election is in motion, right early voting began in March, and so they were like, we're not going to step in and stop this from occurring, because you know, if the voters reject it, then there is no case. But they said, if the voters do approve it, then we would take a look at this stuff. They say in one of their in that ruling from March fourth, if the election when held was not according to statute, or if the statute was enacted without any constitutional authority, the courts might very well hold the election invalid. But that is quite another thing from enjoining the people from peaceably assembling and casting their votes for or against any proposition submitted to them under the color of law. This is one of those things where same thing in North Carolina that it is assumed just from a starting point that acts by the legislature are legal, are constitutional. You work off of the assumption that the thing that they are doing is legal, right, and so if they throw this to the voters, right, you are working off of an assumption that this is a legitimate, legal, constitutional law. Now, once the voters say yes, as they did, now the judge from tazziwell, now he comes back and says injunction again, and Jay Jones is going to appeal it, going to take it back to the state Supreme Court. In that the previous overturning or the blocking of the injunction. They said that. They're only focusing on the timing of the exercise of judicial injunctive remedies, not on a court's constitutional power of judicial review. The Judiciary Department has the power and it is its duty to pass upon the validity of a constitutional amendment when put in force, as well as upon the validity of an Act of the Legislature regularly passed and put in effect. If the electorate rejects the proposed amendment, any pending legal proceedings will be dismissed as moot. If the electorate approves the proposed amendment, we then must exercise our constitutional duty to review lower courts declaratory judgments before us on appeal and address what equitable remedies, if any, are appropriate. Now, this is not a guarantee that they're going to throw the whole thing out. Okay, they very well could cave right. Maybe they get some text messages from J. Jones, right, and they get very worried and intimidated. That's possible. Okay, maybe you get a bunch of the leftist moonbat brigade that starts picketing out in front of the judges homes and issuing death threats and such, and maybe they cave. Maybe they say, well, surely we must abide by the will of the voters, even if the mechanism used was completely unconstitutional in at least three different ways. Right, maybe they do that. I don't know who the judges are. I don't know their politics. I don't know if they are activists. If they are, you know, let me read between the lines and conjure up some special law for this one particular case. I don't know. But they go to great lengths here. Later on they say that they're ruling to block the injunction. In March, they said, this implies no rejection of the Circuit Court's judgment, nor of the legal challenges asserted by the complainants in the case that have yet to be ruled upon by the lower court. It would be perilous, a perilous mistake to infer that these claims fail any aspect of the likelihood of success criteria. Right, A perilous mistake to assume that just because we're allowing the vote to go through means that we don't share some of these same concerns, that there is a likelihood of success criteria that's been met the Virginia Supreme Court this ruling back in March, where they block the injunction. One last part they list all of the what are called declaratory judgments that the initial judge had made, and those were what got appealed. They don't take up any of the merits of any of these arguments or ones that were raised later, but they list them all out, and they conclude their ruling by saying this, these issues are of grave concern to the court, but consistent with prior rulings, we offer no opinion on the ultimate resolution. It is the process, not the outcome of this effort, that we may ultimately have to address. Right. I have seen this line quoted, and they chop off in the media reports. They chop off the last part. They say, it's the process, not the outcome of this effort that we may ultimately have to address. Right. So they're signaling that if this thing passes, they expect the original lawsuits to go back before the lower court judge, for the judge to rule the same way, for it to get appealed to the Supreme Court again, and now they're going to have to look at the merits whether or not the Democrats violated the state constitution in numerous ways in order to put the referendum to the voters like they did, and it's pretty clear they did. I mean, it's pretty black and white. They absolutely I mean, there are four different ways that they violated the state constitution. One of them. One of them is going to depend on whether or not you count early voting as election day or not, right, because like election it says before the election, and if early voting has started and you're running this stuff through, then it's like okay, well now you're doing it during an election. And Democrats, i'm sure will say no, no, no, it's just election day, right, which is the exact opposite opinion that they have been expressing when it comes to counting mail in ballots after election day. That thing went all the way to the US Supreme Court. They heard oral arguments on it a couple of weeks ago, and Democrats up there were saying, well, election day could mean you know, a couple days after two. But for the Virginia case, they will make the argument that it's just election day. Right. So again, like there's no firm principle here, it's just whatever they need to say at whatever time. Now if this thing does get blocked, if the Virginia State Supreme Court does block this and they say you violated the state constitution, so this is null and void if they do that, think about. The damage done to the Democrats. Number one, you have really hacked off half of your state's population. And they turned out in pretty big numbers for this referendum. It barely got by, It barely squeaked by, and they lost. The yes vote lost in like almost every county except the DC suburbs, like Fairfax County, Richmond, right, and that's where those and there was another one in the sort of central part I forget where, but that's it. They carried like these these three or four areas. The whole rest of the state was against it. So you've you've angered a lot of voters. You've wasted somewhere in the neighborhood of seventy to one hundred million dollars on this campaign. You have also. Exposed your hypocrisy on jerrymandering, right, that you don't actually believe you shouldn't jerry mander. And look, I saw this with Republicans as well. I remember interviewing Republicans in the early two thousands when Democrats controlled the state legislature here in North Carolina and Republicans were pushing for an independent redistricting commission because the Democrats kept gerrymandering the maps to prevent Republicans from winning, and they kept trying to get legislation and lawsuits and stuff like that, and they never went anywhere. Right, Democrats refused. As soon as Democrats lost control and Republicans gained control, the positions flipped. Right. Democrats have only been talking about gerrymandering for the last roughly what twenty years. This has only become a threat to the democracy within the last twenty years. Why because they controlled it for sixty years prior, and they had no problem drawing all of the maps to benefit themselves and keep themselves in power for like sixty years. When Republicans finally started making gains and they started controlling the maps, then gerrymandering became a problem. And the people that used to call for an independent redistricting commission, Republicans, they now got the ring of power and they will use it for good. That's the we will. We will use this power now. So that's another problem for the for Democrats. Also, do you know there is a state that is considering doing redistricting themselves. There is still a pretty large state that's still out there. You know which state it is, Florida. Florida. They're coming back into session next week. They have not done a redistricting like this. Right now. They have a twenty to eight Republican Democrat split in their congressional delegation. Twenty to eight, Okay. I don't know if the Supreme Court's going to be able to make a ruling before Florida does what it does or doesn't do. I'm not sure. Nobody knows what Ron DeSantis is thinking at this point. I suspect though, that they probably will float a map to redistrict as well. They could do it for the exact same reason, and Democrats have basically shot all their AMMO. They don't really have any other states they can jerrymander because they've already been all jerrymandered. So Florida could enter the chat and Florida could start their redistricting, and if the Virginia Supreme Court blocks the new map, that means it goes back to a six' Five Democrat republican, split and Then florida because of the vote In Virginia florida redistricts and you lose even more. Seats hoisting on their own. Petard all, right that'll do it for this. Episode thank you so much for. LISTENING i could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the, podcast so if you'd, like please support them too and tell them you heard it. Here you can also become a patron at My patreon page or go to dpetecleanershow dot. Com, again thank you so much for, listening and don't break anything While i'm. Gone