The fight over Virginia’s redistricting decision revealed an audacious plan from some on the left: force early retirements, refill the courts with partisan picks, and undo an unfavorable ruling. This piece lays out how that proposal surfaced, who pushed it, why it matters to voters, and what it signals about the broader push to remake courts and institutions for raw political advantage.
When the Virginia Supreme Court tossed out the Democrats’ redistricting map, some voices moved quickly from legal disagreement to revenge. Michigan State law professor Quinn Yeargain floated what he called “a simple – and lawful – solution: Send the entire court into early retirement.” The idea is to lower mandatory retirement ages and immediately clear seats for friendly appointees.
Yeargain even suggested changing “the mandatory retirement of justices and judges after they reach a prescribed age, beyond which they shall not serve, regardless of the term to which elected or appointed.” That kind of targeted rule-making would allow one party to wipe out an opposing bench overnight. Setting the bar at 54, he argued, would effectively end the current court’s service and let new nominees step in.
Calling the current retirement age of 73 “arbitrary,” Yeargain recommended, “Make it 54 for Supreme Court justices – the age of the youngest justice, Stephen McCullough, who joined the majority opinion – and make it take effect immediately.” That explicit prescription for surgical institutional change is not subtle and makes clear this is a power play, not a reform discussion. For many voters, that reads like naked court-packing dressed up as policy.
Republicans and independents watching this saw more than a local dust-up; they saw a blueprint that could be copied at the federal level. Legal academics and strategists on the left have mused publicly about replacing or expanding the Supreme Court, and those conversations have crept into mainstream punditry. When the salt-and-pepper of the establishment openly discusses adding justices or sweeping institutional changes, it undercuts claims of principled reform.
There’s also a disturbing trend in rhetoric: some advocates now embrace “By any means” as the path forward. Figures once cautious about constitutional guardrails have started urging that the judiciary be remade to match policy aims, and even two prestigious scholars urged a mindset to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” That kind of language signals a readiness to discard norms rather than defend them.
Political operatives admit the public would likely reject blunt grabs for power, but many nonetheless propose stealthier tactics. As one strategist put it, “They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.” And when the same voice said, “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it,” it revealed a willingness to avoid voter scrutiny while remaking institutions.
Not all Democratic officials embraced the early-retirement scheme, and some legal experts cautioned that courts would likely strike down moves that clearly target judges for partisan reasons. The Virginia court itself described the contested redistricting as “wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history” and framed the episode as “a story of the tail wagging the dog that has no tail.” Still, the proposal to reshape the bench regardless of legal limits is what alarms many citizens.
Sen. Tim Kaine publicly attacked the court’s timing and motives, demanding answers about why the decision came when it did and suggesting bias. Below is the relevant social post that captured the senator’s reaction and the heated public debate that followed.
The push to alter retirement rules or expand courts isn’t just a legal quirk; it’s political theater with tangible consequences. In purple states like Virginia, voters who saw their representation threatened are unlikely to forget that major party figures sought to erase opposition. Once trust in institutions erodes, voters get suspicious and backlash becomes the predictable outcome.
What matters now is whether citizens demand restraint and defenders of constitutional norms step up. When activists openly contemplate a future where courts are instruments of partisan will, the stakes go beyond any single case or map. This episode should remind everyone that preserving independent institutions matters as much as winning elections, and that the temptation to “Just do it” risks unmaking the rules that protect democratic competition.
