The Stack: Virginia Redistricting Ruling Sparks Judicial Activism Debate
A Virginia judge has temporarily blocked a newly approved redistricting referendum, declaring it unconstitutional just one day after voters passed it. This decision has ignited a fierce debate over whether the ruling represents judicial activism—or a proper application of constitutional law.
At the center of the controversy is the referendum’s wording, which critics argue was misleading, particularly its claim to “restore fairness” in congressional districts. Todd Huff unpacks why that language matters and explains how redistricting is supposed to work under both the U.S. Constitution and state-specific rules.
The case is now headed to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the future of the referendum—and potentially the balance of political power in the state—will be decided. Huff also explores the broader implications, including how media narratives shape public perception and why understanding the mechanics of redistricting puts listeners ahead of most Americans.
🎧 Listen to Today’s Episode
📰 Stack Links
Judge Rules Virginia Redistricting Referendum Unconstitutional
Virginia judge blocks redistricting referendum implementation with injunction
Virginia Supreme Court to hear appeal on redistricting referendum dispute
Legal battle over Virginia redistricting heads to state’s highest court
What the Virginia redistricting referendum fight means for future elections
Experts weigh in on constitutionality of Virginia redistricting vote
Timeline: How Virginia’s redistricting referendum ended up in court
Appeal filed after Virginia judge strikes down redistricting referendum
Want to get Stack links and content delivered to your inbox each weekday?
Subscribe to The Inner Circle. It’s free
📝 Transcript: Virginia Redistricting Ruling Sparks Judicial Activism Debate
The Todd Huff Show – April 24, 2026
Host: Todd Huff
Todd Huff: You know, I am actively looking for the radical lefts version of conservative not bitter. Can you imagine, by the way? Radically left, not bitter? Can you imagine that as we watch it? What's happening with the southern poverty law center as we watch some of these politicians like Pocahontas, which I can say, by the way, I am the self-appointed spokesperson of the Pocahontas family proven by genealogy. At least I've got some records. Put together by genealogists. And actually a couple that show that we are in fact. Direct descendants of Pocahontas, which actually is pretty cool. But there is some question that some have about that. But I've seen it my friends. I can criticize Pocahontas because of this. Because that's what the genealogists have said anyway. But I'm looking for the alternative. The left's alternative to conservative, not bitter.
Todd Huff: They are so bitter and so enraged and soakedful and so angry about everything. My friends, we are not, we're here to help you hear the truth, because I think, well, I know. That matters. And there's a lot of things I want to get to today, but I don't have the time. In fact, we get to some of the things I can't get to in our daily inner circle. Email, which you can get for free text truth to 317851030 if you want to get that. It's totally free. But I want to talk today. Talk today about something we talked about a couple of days ago. Or at least give you an update and discuss this. But I'm going to give you an update. So headline here. Let's see which one do I want to start with? I want to start with this one at the Epic times first judge rules. Virginia redistricting referendum unconstitutional.
Todd Huff: We talked about this. We talked about this on. I want to say Wednesday. I think it was, it was right after this referendum. And if you didn't tune in. Shame on you for I'm kidding. But if you didn't tune in or if you didn't, if you're just catching up, you've been busy, whatever. Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia has. Passed law. A constitutional amendment by referendum. That would allow the state of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, to redraw their congressional districts, giving Democrats in that state based upon. Voting trends and surveys and all that sort of thing. It would give Democrats an advantage to potentially have 10 congressional seats in Virginia. Giving Republicans only one. And currently Virginia is a 6'5 state. When it comes to the breakdown. Six Democrat representatives, five Republicans.
Todd Huff: I went through this again on Wednesday. I don't want to rehash that if you want to listen to it. You can go back to Wednesday's episode. But I do want to say, just to give you the summary so that we can kind of hit the ground running here. I've been remarkably consistent on this Virginia. Legislature, the state legislature. It is their prerogative to redistrict. This hurts Republicans. I don't like that they pass this referendum for political purposes. Because the biggest domestic problem we face in this country. Are people on the left. In Congress preventing things like the SAVE Act. Doing things that. Add inflationary pressures to the economy. Doing things like kind of even at the admission of John Fetterman and another representative in Congress from the northwest. I'm drawing a blank on his name, but they've come out and said the Democrat Party is.
Todd Huff: Not really pro-American and cheering for our side to win in this war in Iran, for example. Some bad, bad things that are coming. From today's Democrat Party. But I have been remarkably consistent. The legislature can redraw the lines. However, they have to follow whatever their state's rules are for doing said redistricting. And that is where the rub is because according to this judge. Which now this is headed to the Supreme Court in the state of Commonwealth of Virginia. According to this judge, the referendum is unconstitutional. So I want to talk about this. I want to unpack this. I want to play a sound bite from Jay Jones, the Attorney General in the state of Virginia. He is. A Democrat. He was on an interview. Here recently. I just want to play this talk about this because we hit on this and said that this is very possibly going to be the outcome of this.
Todd Huff: We shall see. We shall see. It's a dangerous situation or it's a precarious situation to find ourselves in. To think that the only thing that would prevent this would be. A court, especially. Given the less propensity for judicial activism, which is what they're accusing this particular judge of, which is wild stuff. And we'll talk a little bit of that about that. As well today. My friends. But you've worked hard. You've made smart choices. Now it's about making sure that that effort counts not just for today, my friends, but for your future, your family's future full suite wealth helps forward thinking people with a coordinated approach to wealth, legacy and legal planning, including private equity, private credit and options.
Todd Huff (Sponsor): Strategies. They'll help you see the big picture plan ahead and make your success truly matter for the people you care about the most. The goal is to give you. A plan, a plan that stands the test of time. Visit https://fullsuitewealth.com again, that's https://fullsuitewealth.com build your legacy secure your future. Okay. Let's get into this headline here. The epic times judge rules Virginia redistricting referendum unconstitutional. A Virginia judge ruled on April 22 that the ref States redistricting referendum approved by voters a day earlier was invalid nullifying the election results, basically saying. This was an invalid election. This ruling came out. Wednesday, the referendum was on Tuesday. This of course now we're on Friday. So this was immediately in the immediate aftermath of this. Referendum passing Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said he would immediately file in a pill, excuse me, Virginia voters have spoken in an activist judge.
Todd Huff: Should not have veto power over the people's vote. Jones said in an ex post, which we'll talk about that. But let's. Continue. Is it Tay's well circuit court judge Jack Hurley entered an injunction blocking certification of the election. Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said the legal fight was just beginning after language used in the ballot raised a lot of interest among the opposition. Let me pause again on Wednesday's program, which would have been the day after this referendum. And actually the day that the judge made this ruling, this injunction. We went through Ken Cuccinelli. He has four points as to why this. Case, this, this referendum could actually be stopped because of legal purposes, which to me is just rich with irony, right? Because you have the left, you have the left who have taken the position that says that the Republicans are trying to.
Todd Huff: Take advantage of their political power in states like Indiana, even though we. Didn't have Republicans who had the spine, the backbone, the political will, the foresight, the understanding, the Practical wisdom to understand what we are dealing with, what the threat is and how the, how it must be defeated. They criticized Indiana, they wailed as though life as we knew it was over in this. Well, as they say in this democracy, I would say our constitutional republic, it was over because we even voted. We even tried in Indiana to redistrict because that was such an abuse of power. But it's totally cool. When they do it in. The Commonwealth of Virginia. Because see, the Democrats have positioned it that, hey, we're just trying to keep up with the Republicans, which is absolutely false. Democrats have played these games for a long time. As I've said before, you can go look. Yourselves. Go look and see which states have all of their. Congressional districts that are one color or the other. It certainly happens in a lot of states. But look at how they got there. Look at the shapes of their districts. Understand what re, what gerrymandering is. Gerrymandering isn't redrawing a district simply because, you know, the people responsible for that, which by the way constitutionally is a state legislature. It isn't saying gerrymandering isn't just redrawing a district that's favorable to your party. Gerrymandering is specifically drawing a district that is in a completely strange shape. In order to get that advantage. And you'll find, I'm not saying you won't find any Republican districts that you cannot argue are gerrymandered. You will find that there are many, many more.
Todd Huff: In Democrat districts. And there's, there is actually a reason for this. See, Republicans, they are typically not in the cities, not in urban areas. And so they're more spread out across the more. I'll use the word rural. I don't know, depending upon the state, there might not really be a lot of rural area, especially in the Northeast. But the further you get from the cities, you'll find a higher percentage of Republicans. And you'll, what happens is Democrats, in order to get an advantage, they want to slice up that city. In the metropolitan area as much as possible so that they can get, you know, that highly. Dense blue population of their state. To be in as many of those districts as possible, just giving them an advantage in each of the district that they can slice it out of. And look at the Virginia map. I mean, it's exactly what it is. It goes up to Metro DC area. And there's a bunch of tiny little slivers that come off of the, what the northern or maybe northeastern, however you look at Virginia. It's kind of an odd shaped state. But that part of the state, the, the, the high point that's up there in the metropolitan DC area has a bunch of districts now. It doesn't, it doesn't currently, but the new referendum has the, the, these districts that are a little slivers that, that splinter off from the metropolitan DC area. It's clearly much more gerrymandered than Indiana ever dreamt of being. Just looking at these shapes. Of the district.
Todd Huff: See, people don't do this. They listen. To people. They hear the left make this, this case, this narrative paint this picture. They say Republicans have been doing this. They've been the ones abusing their power. We have no choice but to, I guess, abuse the power that we're accusing them of abusing, doing that ourselves, but it's to get even because they're the side that's cheating, which is just factually untrue. But this somehow garners traction in the minds of voters. It is remarkable to me. The power that the media still has over the narrative, especially for those who refuse to think for themselves, especially for those who just are consumers of news instead of thinkers. And people who want to think about these things as freedom loving Americans with the responsibility. To understand what is actually going on and what the real sources of our problems are. Instead of just following the narrative. But they follow it hook, line and sinker. And it's just, it's ironic if they are going to be struck down for violating the law while saying the Republicans are the ones who have been taking advantage of this circumstance and the situation. And they're the ones that started it. When, of course, it's just so tasty to me. To watch the Democrats have to defend how they broke the law. Maybe, maybe in multiple ways here.
Todd Huff: But there, there are multiple problems with this. And I went through that on Wednesday. And that's been laid out by former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, which this article talks about here. This is specifically talking about the language and the referendum. We talked about that on Wednesday as well. Here's the question that voters face. D while. Filling out their ballots, completing the referendum earlier this week. This is how it read, and I've shared this with you before. I'm going to share it again. Ask yourself, is this. How the question should have been phrased? On a supposed objective ballot, just providing information as fairly as possible so that the people voting on the referendum could actually make a decision instead of being pushed one way or the other. Because news flash it doesn't. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in upcoming elections. While ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census. So the problem here with this. Is the wording. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the general assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness. In the upcoming elections to restore fairness. Friends.
Todd Huff: There the number of people that understand if you've listened to this program, if you if you have read. If you have read about. How districts are drawn the process, if you've even listened to conversations, if you've listened to this program, I am telling you right now, you are in the top five or 10% of people in this country who understand redistricting, how it happens, why it happens, when it typically happens in relation to the census. Whose power it is constitutionally and just that entire process. You know, you may have heard before, if you spend, it's an amazingly short amount of time. If you spend like 10 or 15 minutes a day reading on a particular subject, in a matter of just a few months, you become someone who knows more about that topic than the vast majority of people in our country. It's just the way that it is. People don't know as much as they want to pretend that they know. And people want to have opinions on this because it of course has political implications. But their opinions are pretty much worthless because they don't understand the mechanics of this. They don't understand what's constitutional. They don't understand who has the authority.
Todd Huff: They don't understand that each state, as we've gone through, have all have their own sets of rules. Indiana didn't really have any requirements other than the state legislature has to redraw districts every 10 years. That's the rule. And that, by the way, is the baseline bare minimum from the Constitution. Some states have made the way districts are drawn. Part of their Constitution. And so they can't do something. Procedurally to redraw districts if it violates what the Constitution says. Or maybe they're just a statute, a law that has been passed as to how this happens and when it happens and the process by which it happens. Some of them have created commissions and these so-called non-political entities who make these decisions give me a break. This is a political process. No matter how much you try to pretend it's not, there is no objective fair standard on what a congressional district should look like. I've been through this until I'm blue in the face. It's the reason why I was trying to plead with my, with my Republican friends with the state senators in Indiana. It's the reason I went to the state house to speak at the. Turning point event on the, in the rotunda. Trying to persuade Republican state senators in this state to pass the redistrict, the redrawn maps. But some simply refuse for reasons I still don't understand.
Todd Huff: Because they say it's unfair. Because they say Democrats should have representation. Democrats can still vote. For representation. If, if they elect, or I should say nominate people who actually are more sane. And who are not radical leftists, they have better chances of winning. In fact, when you redistrict in your state, what you actually end up doing is taking, let's just say a Republican state trying to redistrict. You take your Republican vote that you have and you dilute it. You spread it out. So by definition, all of the districts are going to become all the districts Republicans have won are going to become more competitive because they've taken those Republican voters and spread them out. More equally meaning that if some candidate comes along who's a Democrat, and this, by the way, is the same vice versa in a Democrat state that's trying to redistrict. It's actually statistically easier to win these districts as the party who's not in power because you've diluted the vote of the majority party. It doesn't mean it's likely. It just means it's more likely to maybe have some swing districts come into play. Now they're careful as to how they try to do this, but that's certainly what happens mathematically. And so all these things remain the same. You can still vote for Democrats. No one is being. Having their vote taken away. No one is being suppressed as a voter. They're just not able to have a clear advantage in as many districts, statistically speaking. But as I said. The advantage the Republicans have actually decreases across the districts that they've typically won because they've taken those Republican voters and spread them out to. Districts where Democrats typically win. So it's just by understanding that you're ahead of 90 to 95% of the people. And fortunately we have this judge who says listen. You can't, one of the problems here is this is this. The way that this is written. And by the way, that's not all the. That's not all the problems that there are with this referendum.
Todd Huff: We went through those earlier this week. I'm not going to hash them out, but it does revolve around the state. Meeting the standards, including the amount of time. That. The amendment must be. Passed by the legislature in the state of Commonwealth of Virginia before it goes to the voters for referendum. It didn't meet that threshold. It didn't meet. The threshold that said it had to be voted on. In, in the legislature than there had to be an election. And then they would vote on it again and they didn't follow that process. Early voting had begun. Before they had. You know completed the vote on the first passage of the amendment. Basically, they didn't do anything right. When it came to how they did this. They saw that they were in a political disadvantage and they wanted to rush and hurry to try to make sure they were ready. By the midterms. And this is again, as we said earlier this week because of Ken Cuccinelli and how he was out there explaining this, trying to get people's attention. It's coming to pass exactly as he predicted it would. And we've just scratched the surface here. Because there's more to this. This might be headed to the Supreme Court next week in the Commonwealth of Virginia. So we'll talk about that on the other side of the brakes. It's at my friends. You're listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, the one and the only, the ever so benevolent dictator behind the microphone Todd Hoff back in just a minute.
Todd Huff: Welcome back my friends talking about the fallout, the legal fallout of this referendum that has passed the Commonwealth of Virginia. Based upon several legal problems with this referendum. I don't want to go again. I talked about this earlier in the week. You could listen there. You can go and look at some of the things that former Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli has said he's been spot on on this. So they, a judge has placed an injunction on this basically pausing this taking effect. Supreme Court's going to hear this in Virginia next week. It's a lot to process here. And I want to play a clip of the current attorney general in the state of Commonwealth of Virginia. Jay Jones out there. Trying to make the case that he's defending this and that this is judicial activism and so forth, but we'll get to that. My friends, as the program unfolds here in the time, we have remaining. There's a lot of confusion out there about kratom. You've probably heard the headlines. And most of those headlines that you read that are negative about kratom that sound concerning. Are not based on real kratom. They're based on synthetic junk that isn't even real kratom at all. Real kratom is natural. It's tested. It's handled with care. It's not some synthetic blend. It is again natural and there's a process that's been used for generations. This is what you get. From Christopher's organic botanicals. You get the real thing not synthetic garbage and junk. This is a family run company. They partner directly with farmers in Indonesia. Every batch is lab tested. For purity. There's no chemicals, no fillers, no shortcuts.
Todd Huff (Sponsor): Again, this has been used for generations. Four generations. And it is a real alternative for people looking for something that doesn't come with a warning label that is a mile long. Once you do your research and decide, hey, this is something I would like to try. Start with their kratom starter pack coupon code Todd huff. It's my first and last name, my friends. Todd Huff gets you 10% off your first order. That's all one word. https://christophersorganicbotanicals.com. that's the website. Again, https://christophersorganicbotanicals.comtruth. Tradition transparency. Okay. So Virginia Attorney General was. On an interview with CNN News Central yesterday, yesterday, Thursday. And I want to play a bit of this as she's asking him about the bill, the language of the bill. He's going to talk about judicial activism. I just want to give you again, he's a Democrat.
Jay Jones (Soundbite): Well, thank you for having me. It's my pleasure to be with you this afternoon. You know, look, we are excited that Virginia went out to the polls on Tuesday, made their voices heard. Turnout was robust. Both sides engaged in a vigorous campaign. And the yes side prevailed. And now as attorney general, my job is to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. And so we won't let one activist judge in one county in Virginia try to offset the will of the people of this Commonwealth where more than 1.6 million voted yes. And so we will be in court very soon. My office appealed the decision and we are going to get this resolved quickly to the we can bring some clarity to the situation.
Todd Huff: I'm going to pause. Judicial activism. He's accused. Jay Jones, Attorney General of Virginia has accused this judge who placed a temporary injunction on this referendum being finalized. He accused this judge of judicial activism. This is not dealing with reality at all. Judicial activism is a very specific thing and it is something that I am incredibly bothered by. It matters tremendously. In this country. And it's a dangerous thing. But you have to. Properly define what it is. Because. A judge. Can absolutely make a ruling on a case brought before him. So someone can bring. A case. Against a law that's been enacted in a state, for example. You can bring a case, you can say that that has violated the state constitution or for whatever reason.
Todd Huff: And the judge can hear the case on its merits. And the judge's job is to interpret. The law and the Constitution. That's what his or her job is to say, okay, we have rules. We have a process. Or maybe we don't have a process. But if we have a rule and a process that's a statute, just a general law, or if it went through the process of being entered into the Constitution, which this had this, in fact, that's why this was a, that's why this has the threshold. Of requiring an amendment to the state constitution in Virginia because they already had an amendment dealing with this. So they were trying to change the amendment to allow them to change the rules so that they could redistrict, which again is in. One sense totally fine because that is the prerogative of the state legislature. However, in another sense, that's totally. What I want to say. It's, it's, it's totally. Illegal to, to do it in a way that doesn't consistent with the law and the Constitution. And as I've shared today a little bit and as I shared on Wednesday in much more detail, this is exactly what happened. So judicial activism is when a judge actually. They, they. Step outside the bounds of their particular role. So for example, a judge is totally within his rights, her rights to make a case and cite the law. And say, this is why. Judicial activism is what you have from leftist judges. This is what happens. This is the strategy that is used. When. A person has a desire to further a political agenda and they want to justify it through any means possible.
Todd Huff: They don't even care if they justified. They just, the ends justify the means, right? They, so a judicial activist, this is when I remember there was a Supreme Court Justice. I think it was Brennan. It's been a while. But I remember him saying that justices could cite foreign law in their opinions on the US Supreme Court. To which I. Said, I replied that we are a half step away from being able to cite Harry Potter novels in our Supreme Court. What foreign law has to do with our law? It's, it's a, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary. The, the judiciary is supposed to be the voice, if you will, of the state constitution of the state law. Of the US Constitution when these things are applicable. They're supposed to, the judge is supposed to be the voice of those things. Of, of laws that had been passed that are still on the books of constitutional amendments, which are still on the book, so to speak. Long after the people who voted for them are gone. The people who comprise the current legislature may or may not like those. It doesn't matter because they're on the books and this is how it's supposed to work. We are a nation that's supposed to follow the rule of law. And if the law has been broken and it can be argued systematically, even if I don't disagree with it or, or even if I disagree with it and you disagree with it, but if it can be the case can be made that here's what the law says, here's how I interpret it. Here's how that. Doesn't comply. It doesn't, doesn't meet the requirements of the law.
Todd Huff: I have to say as such, the results of what just happened are not. Are not legitimate. That's how this works. Judicial activism is when someone says, I want to cite foreign law or I just don't like what happened here. And I'm just going to say my opinion is this. They're not the same thing. The left suit uses judicial activism. I have to take a break, my friends. Quick time out back in just a minute. Welcome back my friends third and final segment of the program today. Last time you're going to hear my voice this week. I know it's a sad, sad time. But listen the best way. To hear what else we have to say about the issues, the topics is to subscribe to the inner circle. It is free. We've got an archive of a lot of stuff. You could delve into. All you have to do is text the word truth to 317-785-1030. And you can get those for free and you'll be busy. Even when this program, when you're caught up on the program, there's a lot of other stuff. That you'll be able my friends to get to. You know, one of the biggest challenges conservatives like you have is finding ways to ensure that you're consistent. You're consistently living out your values. And that includes making sure your investments align with your values as well. 4:8 Financial specializes in biblically responsible investing. That means they screen out companies that do not align with your faith, your values. So you're not funding things that go completely against your beliefs.
Todd Huff (Sponsor): They do the heavy lifting for you. All you have to do is complete an easy assessment. It's quick and easy. To help them. Make sure your investments are aligned with your purpose, with your goals. So. You want to take that assessment, head on over to https://48financial.com/todd now. https://48financial.com/todd. Don't put this off. It's a quick and easy assessment. And they will give you the results and you can decide. You can decide what, if anything, you want to do. Maybe it's maybe you find out that it's exactly in alignment. Your investments are aligned with your values. Maybe you find out they're halfway there. Maybe you find out they're completely against your values. Whatever the case, you need to know this information. It's quick and easy.
Todd Huff: 48 Financial because your money should work for your values and certainly not against them. All right, so here's if I pulled up AI. I don't know what this is Google's AI. And it says this judicial activism is the philosophy that judges should use their rulings to influence policy protect individual rights and address social needs. Rather, this is the point rather than strictly adhering to the precedent or legislative intent. In other words, it's more important for the judge to implement his or her own. Policy preference. Whatever he or she thinks the outcome should be. Just to say that's what it should be. That's judicial activism. It's not strictly adhering to judicial, to the precedent of the court. The intent of the legislation. It's just kind of going out on your own and saying it's what happened. It's candidly what happened in the original Roe versus Wade case in 1973 when nine old white men in black robes told women what they could do with their bodies. I'm just using the language of the left. This is what happened. This was judicial activism. They just made these things up. They just made up the trimester stuff when you can have a baby, the viability of the unborn child, all that stuff just made up by the court. They had nothing to do with laws on the none of that. Just make it up. Just, there we go. This is what we think is fair. That is not the role of judges of the court, the job of judges is to interpret fairly. The Constitution. Statutes. And then look at the facts of the case.
Todd Huff: And apply them and say. Well, this followed that, you know, the outcome. You remember when Kavanaugh, I think it was Kavanaugh, when he had his hearing for his Supreme Court nomination. Before the US Senate committee. He said, my job as a judge is to interpret the law. And he made some comment. I'm going to paraphrase the idea. He basically said, look, if I don't make some decisions that I'm not personally bothered by, I'm not doing my job. And this is why. What he meant was, if there's a law that says this, this is the law of the land. This is the law. And it says something that he personally doesn't agree with. It's his job as a judge to put all that aside. And I know in this highly. Political world that we live in and the high emotions and the fact that everything is now political. This seems impossible. For people. To be able to do. And candidly, even a lot of judges cannot avoid that temptation. But the truth is that is, that's how it should work. It's 100% How it should work. You should look at the law and you should say, hey, it's what it says. I personally disagree. But that's not my job. I am the voice of that law. The best that we can have as a judge. I'm the voice of the Constitution. I'm the voice of piecing together what the law and the Constitution says and how that applies to this case. My opinion doesn't matter whatsoever.
Todd Huff: I am not here for myself. If I want to be here for myself and my beliefs and the beliefs of the people that I represent, I need to go run for Congress. I need to be sitting. In the office as a congressman or a senator. I shouldn't be thinking that way, acting that way as a judge. That's not the way that it's supposed to work. It simply isn't. And the left has used this tool judicial activism for a long time. Mark Levin's written books about this. Talking about the nine. The nine people in the long black robes who can sometimes, they can just declare whatever. Because our system. Assumed, I guess is the word. That there would be judicial restraint and that politics would not infiltrate the judiciary. And if it did, there's means to remove. Judges, which has been talked about recently. Because we've dealt with so much of this. But you can actually, this is how you can impeach a judge. This is, if judges are interpreting things clearly outside the confines of the Constitution and the law. That's what should be done. And that's the mechanism to fix this. But I'm just out of time here, my friends. Have a wonderful weekend. Thanks for listening. SDG.
