Democrats are doing the very thing they condemn Trump for | Opinion

Democrats have spent much of Donald Trump’s second term warning that his attacks on the courts threaten democratic norms. Yet when courts deliver rulings they dislike, many Democrats prove willing to undermine those same institutions themselves.

After Virginia’s Supreme Court blocked the state’s gerrymandered congressional map, Democrats responded not with restraint, but with attacks on the very legitimacy of their own judiciary, even exploring ways to remove some or all of its justices.

That response goes far beyond ordinary political frustration. It is another example of Democrats engaging in the very sort of behavior they routinely condemn in Trump.

Virginia Democrats are trying to override constitutional safeguards for partisan gain

From the outset, Virginia Democrats’ redistricting push was a brazen attempt to sidestep constitutional safeguards against partisan gerrymandering.

Virginia’s constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn by an independent commission, precisely to stop either party from manipulating maps for political advantage. Rather than accept that constraint, Democrats sought to sidestep it through a constitutional amendment process requiring only a simple majority in a statewide referendum.

Democratic lawmakers rushed that effort forward with a vaguely worded ballot measure that narrowly passed, paving the way for a dramatic partisan redrawing that would shift Virginia from a relatively competitive 6-5 Democratic advantage to an overwhelming 10-1 Democratic map.

However, Virginia’s plan ran into a constitutional obstacle. State law requires ballot initiatives to pass the legislature twice, with an election occurring between those votes. Because Virginia’s initial legislative approval came after early voting had already begun in the 2025 election, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled the process unconstitutional.

Rather than accept that decision, Democrats are now exploring ways around it. According to The New York Times, Democratic Virginia lawmakers, in discussions with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, considered a range of options to override or circumvent the ruling. Some proposals were especially extreme, including restructuring the court itself by lowering the mandatory retirement age for justices, potentially allowing Democrats to replace the entire bench.

Whether Democrats pursue such a nuclear option or settle for a less extreme workaround remains unclear. They almost immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against them May 15 in a one-sentence decision upholding the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling.

Democrats' court rhetoric collapses when rulings go against them

Virginia Democrats’ willingness to consider bulldozing their own Supreme Court simply because it delivered an unfavorable ruling is an alarming assault on judicial independence. The judiciary can function properly only if judges are free to interpret the law without fear of political retaliation. If justices risk losing their positions whenever they rule against those in power, judicial independence becomes meaningless.

Courts are not meant to serve as rubber stamps for legislative majorities simply because those majorities claim to represent the will of the voters. Quite the opposite: American courts are deliberately counter-majoritarian institutions, designed to protect constitutional limits and prevent temporary political majorities from trampling legal safeguards.

If Republicans in a red state were openly exploring ways to override a progressive court, Democrats would almost certainly denounce it as an authoritarian attack on democracy. In many cases, they already have condemned Trump and Republicans for less. Yet when Democrats engage in similar behavior, it is too often reframed as justified resistance to an “illegitimate” court.

To be clear, many Democratic criticisms of Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are entirely valid. Trump has repeatedly undermined the legitimacy of the courts. But those critiques lose moral force when Democrats respond to unfavorable rulings with their own threats to judicial legitimacy, whether against the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority or now in Virginia.

The difference between Virginia Democrats’ behavior and Trump’s own attacks on the judiciary is largely one of scale, not principle. Undermining the federal judiciary may carry broader national consequences, but efforts to weaken judicial independence at the state level are no less corrosive to constitutional governance.

Consistency matters. If Democrats are willing to condemn Republican assaults on the courts, they must be equally willing to reject similar behavior within their own ranks. Otherwise, their defense of judicial independence looks less like principle and more like political convenience.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.