1 Trending: How The CCP Uses Birthplace Citizenship And Surrogacy To Manufacture ‘Americans’

2 Trending: Lawsuits Challenging Spanberger’s Virginia ‘Assault Firearms’ Gun Grab Pour In

3 Trending: Of Course Our Immigration System Should Discriminate Against Bad Immigrants

4 Trending: Here’s A Not-So-Modest Proposal: Bring Back Public Executions

By Democrats’ Standards, Virginia Redistricting Lawyers Should Lose Their Jobs, Licenses, And Life Savings

What is unfolding is not just partisan hardball but the normalization of constitutional lawfare, justified because it is by the left.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

Democrats’ legal strategy in the Virginia redistricting dispute, if measured against the standards they imposed on Republicans, would warrant the professional ruin of everyone involved. The contrast is most directly illustrated by the case of John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and lawyer for President Trump who authored two memoranda outlining constitutional theories related to the disputed 2020 election.

The destruction of Eastman’s career was presented as constitutional self-defense. He was not merely portrayed as a lawyer advancing flawed arguments under unprecedented political circumstances, but as someone who had crossed an impermissible line. He was stripped of his law license, financially devastated, and cast as a “threat to democracy.”

Yet only a few years later, many of the same political and media institutions that demanded Eastman’s destruction are now defending, minimizing, or simply ignoring conduct that is functionally similar in principle and significantly more aggressive in practice.

The Virginia redistricting dispute, and particularly the extraordinary strategies reportedly discussed by Virginia Democrats, as well as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and his allies, reveal the scale of the double standard with remarkable clarity. What is unfolding is not just partisan hardball but the normalization of constitutional lawfare, openly justified because it is being undertaken by the “correct” political faction.

To understand the comparison, it is important to begin with what Eastman actually did, rather than the caricature that subsequently emerged around him.

Following the 2020 election, Eastman advanced the theory that Vice President Mike Pence possessed authority under the 12th Amendment to delay or reject disputed electoral votes during the certification........

© The Federalist