Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
 Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd

The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |
Author: Dope1 ⎊  😊 😞
Number: of 84350 
Subject: VA Supremes on gerrymandering:
Date: 04/28/26 1:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just released:

X (Twitter): Del. Wren M. Williams on X: "🚨 BREAKING: The Supreme Court of Virginia has denied the Attorney General’s Motion for Emergency Stay in RNC v. Koski


BREAKING: The Supreme Court of Virginia has denied the Attorney General’s Motion for Emergency Stay in RNC v. Koski - the one where he didn’t quote the ballot language.

One sentence. No dissent. No partial relief.

“Upon consideration whereof, the Court denies the motion.”

What this means in plain terms:

Jay Jones’ outside counsel from California asked the Court to allow the election process to proceed pending the rulings on the merits of the gerrymandering cases.

The Court said “no.” This stops the election from being certified for now.

The same Supreme Court that allowed the referendum to go forward in March, so voters could be heard, has now declined to override a final judgment finding the constitutional amendment process defective. Strong signal that process matters in Virginia.

The Attorney General asked the Court of Virginia to set aside a final order that exposed a ballot question he would not quote, an Article XII timeline he had to redefine, and a 1912 case that did not say what he needed it to say.

The Supreme Court said “no.”
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Ticker or Board Name Author

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community