Mn applauds.

Maybe reading decisions is one of the classes for next year for Erfan.
"It is fair to ask whether we could have or should have reviewed the constitutionality of
the proposed amendment prior to it being presented to the voters. But it is not a question the
Commonwealth should ask. Throughout this litigation,
the Commonwealth has insisted that we cannot lawfully decide this case prior to the referendum. In its motion for a stay in this case, the Commonwealth argued that longstanding Virginia precedent, Scott v. James, was “virtually indistinguishable” from this case and that it clearly held that “courts cannot interfere to stop any of the proceedings while this permanent law is in the process of being made,” .....