Scott Jennings laid into Virginia Democrats’ redistricting gambit on CNN, calling out the legal stretch and the political tantrum behind an effort to revive a gerrymandered map that the Virginia Supreme Court already tossed.
We’ll find out on May 14th whether the U.S. Supreme Court will even touch the latest legal maneuver from Virginia Democrats, who tried to restore a map their own state court deemed unconstitutional. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the gerrymandered plan for multiple violations of the state constitution, and that ruling is the center of the dispute. The push to frame this as a federal question stretches the law and logic in the same breath.
The Democrats’ brief leans on a technical argument about Election Day and federal jurisdiction, but that’s a weak hook. This is fundamentally a state constitutional issue, decided by a state high court. Turning routine map litigation into a federal case because you lost at home is not how the system is supposed to work.
On CNN, Scott Jennings didn’t hold back. He described the brief and the surrounding reaction as a kind of temper tantrum from a party that won’t accept the checks and balances of state law. Jennings pointed at the broader political fury in Virginia, where some proposals moved from fixing a map to gutting the court that ruled against them.
There’s a better chance of me sprouting wings and flying out of that window over there than the United States Supreme Court dealing with this in any way, because this is a state Supreme Court ruling on a state constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t deal with these kinds of things, number one. Number two, the freakout in Virginia has been so extreme. You even have Democrats over there who are saying they want to effectively, politically decapitate the entire Virginia Supreme Court by putting an age limit of 54 so they can get rid of every existing justice and install people who will promise to rule a certain way on a certain case. You know, they went from, oh, this is just a temporary map thing to let’s burn down the entire Virginia Supreme Court in about two seconds over there in Virginia, which tells you all you need to know about just how power hungry and corrupt the Democrats are in Virginia. This is not going to work at the U.S. Supreme Court. And this whole project of maximum warfare by Hakeem Jeffries is completely blown up in their face.
[…]
I mean, in Virginia, you had Democrats in Virginia who broke the law and broke the state constitution to try to move a 6-5, fairly constructed map to a 10-1. They got struck down by Democrats on their own Supreme Court, and now they want to decapitate an entire branch of government over it? It’s ridiculous.
Jennings framed the episode as more than a failed legal gambit; he called it an example of political overreach. When a party is willing to reshape courts and rules after losing, it exposes a deeper problem: an appetite for power that trumps institutional integrity. That line of argument resonates with voters who expect respect for legal boundaries and the rule of law.
The complaint from Virginia Democrats asked the federal court to intervene by treating Election Day timing as a constitutional question, but legal insiders see this as a nonstarter. The U.S. Supreme Court traditionally avoids stepping into pure state constitutional disputes unless there is a clear federal issue at stake. This one appears thin on that front.
Beyond the legalities, the optics are awful for Democrats who pushed the map in the first place. They engineered a plan that critics say aimed to flip a reasonable distribution into a one-sided advantage, and the state court, composed of elected and appointed jurists, rejected that maneuver. Responding by trying to remake the court or escalate to federal review looks like desperation, not principle.
Conservative commentators and legal analysts alike expect the high court to punt on this, probably rejecting the motion without much fanfare. That outcome would leave the state court’s ruling intact and put the onus back on the Virginia Democrats to play by the established rules. It’s a predictable result for anyone who reads the separation of powers correctly.
If the Supreme Court turns them away, the episode will still leave a mark: it will show how far some will go to hold onto electoral advantages and how thin the line can be between aggressive politics and institutional damage. For now, Jennings’ blunt assessment on national television captured that concern in plain language. His critique landed where many conservatives have long warned — reforms and court limits matter when one side tries to rewrite the rules after they lose.
