The last 48 hours have been full of more good political news than I know what to do with. In fact, so many good things are happening that I’m going to divide them into different categories, just to try to keep them all straight. I already know that I won’t be able to cover them all in this column, so I’m going to have more good news stories again on Monday.
My three categories are good judicial rulings, bad people reaping the consequences of their bad actions, and foolish leftist policies crashing and burning in hilariously entertaining ways.
*Today I’ll focus on the good judicial rulings.
Most of the solid rulings involve gerrymandering, as you might guess. I wrote a column on gerrymandering last week, and if you haven’t seen that one, please check it out. In it, I mentioned that gerrymandering is open to abuse, that both sides do it, and that while it always looks a little fishy, it might be the least unfair way to deal with delineating congressional districts.
Natural population shifts require that House district borders be re-drawn after every census, and the task of adjusting those borders has traditionally been controlled by the party that holds a majority in a state legislature. Asking that any party draw completely neutral borders – and in so doing, give up their legitimate advantage by virtue of their having won a majority –
“elections have consequences” has to be one of the oldest truisms in politics – is unrealistic, to say the least.
I proposed that a rough way to assess how close a party comes to a fair redistricting is to compare the percentage of the presidential vote the minority party got, compared to the percentage of the House seats they hold. I chose 5 red states and 5 blue states to compare, and showed that in the blue states the Dems gave themselves an average advantage of 22%, while in the average red states the GOP gave themselves an average advantage of 11%.
So while both parties give themselves an advantage when they control redistricting, the Dems are twice as bad about that as the GOP. Unexpectedly!
Which is why the Virginia redistricting vote two weeks ago was so obnoxious. About four years ago, purple-state Virginia voters had set up a largely non-partisan body to take redistricting out of one party’s hands, and the result was one of the fairest House district border maps in the country. The state went for Que Mala by about 5%, and their holding 6 out of 11 House seats mirrored that percentage.
Then, of course, after campaigning on a promise not to gerrymander, creepy Abigail Spanberger immediately proposed a ballot measure to gerrymander, and produced a very biased change to 10 Dem House seats to only 1 GOP seat. And then she and Hakeem “Dollar-Store Obama” Jeffries and many other House Dems gloated and taunted the GOP about their underhanded victory.
Annnnndddd…the first great judicial move of the week was made by a VA state judge, who declared the ballot issue unconstitutional. The Democrat VA state Supreme Court immediately took up the case, and in their questioning of the lawyers, seemed to indicate that they will likely reject the new, gerrymandered VA House map.
Sure, it was an obvious and easy call. There were two obvious legal requirements that the Dems violated, involving the timing and the method by which they rammed the matter through. But how many times have we seen partisan leftist judges and courts blatantly disregard the law in order to achieve their desired political outcome?
(Off the top of my head, in Roe v Wade SCOTUS “discovered” a constitutional right to abortion that nobody had seen in the previous 200 hundred years, and did the same thing re: gay marriage in Obergefell. Not to mention the 100 Obama or Biden judges who have ruled that Trump isn’t allowed to make executive decisions just because he’s the Chief Executive, and that
Biden could reverse all of Trump’s previous executive orders, but that Trump can’t reverse any of Biden’s or Obama’s executive orders, etc.)
So if the VA Supreme Court does reject the illegal Democrat gerrymander, they will have proved that a Democrat court can follow the law, even when it goes against the wishes of Democrat politicians. But even better, they will have set the table for Spanberger, Jeffries and the Dems to receive an epic, hilarious, karmic arse-whipping.
Because Ron DeSantis responded by LEGALLY achieving an equally lopsided gerrymander in Florida. But since he’s been the best damn governor in these United States, and has turned Florida from purple to deep red, he had already set the table with GOP majorities dominant enough that he could move quickly to put forward a redestricting bill, have it debated and passed by both houses, and then sign it into law himself.
All completely by the book, and in the span of four days!
Man, I hope that we can someday have that guy as our President!
But wait. There’s more! On Wednesday, SCOTUS handed down a long-awaited judgment on a case involving the Dems’ long-standing perversion of one aspect of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Sidebar: I think my view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are typical of most conservatives’ views: they were good and necessary pieces of legislation. (They were passed with a higher percentage of GOP votes (80ish percent) than Dem votes (70ish), and only after the GOP could break a 70+ day filibuster by Democrats, by the way.) They ended the racist legal schemes of the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws.
Annndddd…then they were transformed by those same Democrats into an anti-white and anti-Asian discriminatory racial spoils system that inflamed racial tensions, and resulted in Dems winning more House seats than they legitimately would have, had that racial grift not been in place for the last 60 years.
And SCOTUS ended all of that on Wednesday! By ruling that two racially gerrymandered House districts in Louisiana had violated the non-discrimination rules in the Constitution, SCOTUS opened the door to other red states redrawing non-racist district borders. Initial analyses suggests that this ruling could possibly result in the GOP picking up 10-12 House seats.
It’s important to note that these gains would come NOT from the GOP reversing the anti-white racism of the Dems and beating them at their own racist game. The gains would arise from our finally stopping the Dems from cheating, and would thus require that all candidates more fairly and effectively appeal to all voters, regardless of race, if they want to win elections. Which is as it should be.
So of course the shameless Dems who were gloating about their gains from gerrymandering just one week ago, are now protesting about their losses from gerrymandering. Hilariously enough, they have fewer House seats to gain from their own
additional gerrymandering attempts, since they had already drastically gerrymandered CA, IL and other blue states years ago. Sweet, sweet irony!
In other good news, SCOTUS also slapped down a power-abusing Dem state official in deep-blue New Jersey for having illegitimately gone after prolife centers. NJ Attorney General Matthew Platkin had issued subpoenas in 2023 to pregnancy centers, trying to force them to turn over to the state all information about everybody who had ever donated to or supported their efforts – a clear attempt to bully those groups and intimidate and prevent citizens from supporting them.
Shockingly enough, that was too much even for the three leftist SCOTUS justices, and the court unanimously rejected Platkin’s heavy handed tactics!
In purple Pennsylvania, their own state Supreme Court has ruled that devious Dem election officials have to make voting records public.
Observant readers may have noticed that the elite left has been doing everything possible to enable voting fraud, and hinder attempts to uncover it, stop it. and punish those responsible. Whether its through ballot harvesting, massive mail-in voting or fighting all attempts to mandate voter ID, the left loves itself some shady voting practices.
So it should be no surprise that for five years, Democrat officials have been resisting efforts by election integrity groups to get access to the records that document the votes cast in the 2020 election. (You may remember that election as The Most Honest and Legitimate Election in the History of Elections Ever™.)
In Pennsylvania, the state system retains Cast Vote Records (CVR), which are basically the receipts of votes cast at each election location and voting machine. These records would allow citizens to verify the legitimacy of elections. So the PA Democrat machine would prefer that citizens be prevented from seeing those records.
Unexpectedly!
Once again, the court ruling against the Democrats and for transparency (but I repeat myself) was unanimous!
Finally, and at the risk of counting my chickens before they are hatched, there are yet more encouraging signs coming out of SCOTUS, this time during their questioning of lawyers in a group of cases involving leftist lower court judges’ rulings that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians.
Theoretically, in such cases a president grants many thousands of foreigners the right to stay in America temporarily, because some natural disaster or dire event in their home countries makes it unsafe for them to remain there. In reality, in such cases a (usually Democrat) president grants many thousands of foreigners who would likely vote Democrat the right to come here “temporarily,” and then repeatedly extends the deadline for them to leave, until they are eventually granted citizenship and become a part of a permanent Democrat voting majority.
And America as we know it ends, with both a bang and a whimper.
In the current cases, Obama granted Haitians TPS in 2010 due to an earthquake, and he granted Syrians TPS in 2012, due to a civil war in Syria. The Haitians were supposed to go back home in 18 months, and the Syrians in a year. If you’ll check your calendar, you’ll find that it is now 2026, and they’re all still here. And a bunch of Democrat lawyers and judges are arguing that it would be a crime against humanity for Trump to end their TPS and force them to do what Obama promised he’d force them to do over a decade ago.
Look, I don’t blame anybody for wanting to come to America, which is the greatest country in the world. (Though I don’t understand why any leftists would want to allow that, since they constantly insist that America is a corrupt and evil fascist state, full of racist and sexist theocratic homophobes and transphobes. How could they subject the poor Haitians and Syrians to that kind of nightmare?!)
But saying that you’re giving someone the chance to stay here temporarily when everybody knows that you intend for them to stay here permanently is a lie. (See: The 10 Commandments.)
Speaking of lies, it’s obvious what the Democratic politicians and judges are doing here. They say that it’s perfectly fine for Obama to unilaterally – without any legislation, or approval from the Congress or the people – grant millions of people “temporary” status with the stroke of a pen. But it would be an unconstitutional crime against our sacred democracy for Trump to revoke that “temporary” status with an identical stroke of his pen.
Those judges and politicians are hypocrites, and it will be another great result if SCOTUS hands them yet one more humiliating defeat.
Have a great weekend, and brace yourself for even more good news on Monday.
Que Mala/Crockett, 2028!
0-0-0
If you enjoyed this column, please share it, and click Subscribe (on the bottom of your phone screen, or the right side of your computer screen) to receive a notice when new columns post.
Martin Simpson 