The Virginia Supreme Court--Trustworthy?

 

            F. Lee Baily, speaking nearly two decades ago following the mass shooting at Appalachian School of Law, said, “The God of common law is not justice. The God of common law is consistency.”

            Consistency should be adherence to the law. But if consistency is devotion to ideology regardless of the law, that is a corruption. There is evidence the Virginia Supreme Court is wedded to ideology—even to the point of introducing false evidence in at least one decision.

            Two Virginia Tech families, the Prydes and Petersons, sued over the deaths of their daughters in Cho’s rampage. They won a jury verdict and were each awarded $100,000.

            The Virginia Supreme Court overturned the verdict. Justice Powell erroneously asserted Blacksburg Police Chief Crannis and not Tech Police Chief Flinchum was in charge of the investigation following the initial double homicide. Crannis did not have the authority to warn the campus, therefore the school is not liable.

            Several times under oath, both Crannis and Flinchum testified the Flinchum was in charge on April 16, 2007. Nowhere in the trial transcript does it say Crannis was in charge.

            This November, Virginians will vote on a redistricting bill aimed at curtailing gerrymandering. If the bill passes, a 16-member commission made up of eight members of the General Assembly (four from each party) and eight “independent” citizens will be set up. Six of the eight Republicans and Democrats must approve the plan for it to pass. If the commission fails, the process is passed to the Virginia Supreme Court—therein lies the rub.

            If the Supreme Court will introduce false evidence in its decision involving the Tech massacre, denying two grieving families justice, does anyone believe the court will handle gerrymandering fairly?

            I vote “no."