RSS
“Conservatives” ruled that race matters.
Thumbnail credit: © Fred Schilling/Collection Of/Planet Pix via ZUMA Press Wire
This video is available on Rumble, BitChute, and Odysee.
Last week the US Supreme Court ruled on yet another case about race. The sheer volume of race cases – and the incredible number of justice-hours spent on them – prove how hard it is build a multi-racial country.
This case was about voting, and goes back to Voting Rights Act of 1965, that keeps kicking up litigation that ends up at the Supreme Court.
The idea of the law was simple: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race.”
At the time, Congress decided that six Southern states were deliberately suppressing the black vote through such things as poll taxes and literacy tests, and the law banned deliberate voter suppression.
Since then, the court and Congress have tinkered with the law many times, and banned measures that have what some would argue is only the effect of suppressing the minority vote even if there was no such intention. Some people think requiring a picture ID to vote keeps blacks away from the polls, even if the intent is to make sure that only eligible voters vote.
In 1982, Congress left things in a muddle by banning measures that have a discriminatory effect, but it also insisted that minorities don’t have a right to proportionate representation in elected office. That is to say, no quotas in Congress or the state house or school board or anywhere else. A small, unintended discriminatory effect may be OK, but a big one may not be, and this was the kind of case the Court decided last week.
Alabama has seven seats in Congress, but in the most recently drawn up map of electoral districts, only one of the seven – that is the big yellow one, number seven – is majority black.
This means that if blacks vote as a bloc they can get the congressman they want, no matter what white people think. Blacks therefore control 14 percent of the state’s districts even though they are 26 percent of the voting-age population. The argument was they deserve proportionality, which would be two districts with black majorities.
The Supreme Court agreed, in a 5 – 4 decision. It said the law not only permits but requires a certain amount of race-based juggling. However, giving blacks, who are 26 percent of the voting population, control over 28 percent of the Congressional seats sounds like a quota to me. The court admitted the decision had a funny smell, but it waved that aside: “A fair reading of the record do[es] not bear those concerns out here.”
It argued that Alabama could carve out a second majority-black district without too much jiggery pokery, and maybe that’s true. A lefty site called Unsuppress the Vote came up with three maps of voting districts to back up the court’s decision.
The one in the middle is the current map, with the single majority-black district in blue. *** Unsuppress the Vote wants the map on the left, which is more compact, and has two blue, majority-black districts. It also drew the map on the right, which could have been drawn without even one majority-black district.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a fierce dissent. He says the Voting Rights Act covers “only ‘enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot’; they ‘do not include a State’s . . . choice of one districting scheme over another’.”
He quoted approvingly from another decision: “[D]istricting maps that sort voters on the basis of race ‘“are by their very nature odious’,” because “[r]acial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions” and undermine “the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters.”
He says there can be many reasons for drawing boundaries, but race can’t be one of them, whether it’s to hurt or help minorities.
This case is important for two reasons. First, it supports current thinking on affirmative action in college admissions.
It’s now OK to bend the rules – even twist them into pretzels – to get non-whites into top schools – but you can’t have quotas. The reasoning in last week’s ruling is the same.
However, big media are very worried that “The Supreme Court could end affirmative action. What could happen next?”
“The Supreme Court is poised to reverse affirmative action.”
This decision suggests maybe not.
But the other reason this decision is important is that a so-called conservative court, even half a century after the Civil Rights Movement, recognizes that people of different races have different interests and have the right to elect people to push those racial interests. As a practical matter, that means blacks should be able to elect blacks because blacks know best how to get what blacks want.
The decision noted, almost in passing, that “on average, Black voters supported their candidates of choice with 92.3% of the vote” while “white voters supported Black-preferred candidates with [only] 15.4% of the vote.” That is full-tilt bloc voting.
And don’t forget: The Supreme Court’s reasoning applies to local elections, too. As the country gets ever more gloriously diverse, Hispanics and Asians and Hindus and Muslims can start clamoring for safe seats on the city council and eventually in Congress.
Why not quotas for everyone?
Some of you old-timers remember Lani Guinier.
She was one of those black people who fought vicious white supremacy all the way through Harvard and then Yale Law School, taught for 10 years at Penn Law School and then, in 1998, became the first “woman of color” to get tenure at Harvard Law School. In 1994, Bill Clinton wanted her to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. However, it came to light that she had written articles that seemed to be calling for quotas for elected officials. If blacks were 12 percent of the population, they should have 12 percent of congressional seats set aside for them. That upset conservatives, and Mr. Clinton withdrew the nomination.
This did not stop her from being festooned with honors and awards, including 11 honorary degrees.
Most blacks like quotas, even gilded ones like Lani who swanned to the top without them.
It’s whites who don’t like quotas. They pretend that race is a snare and a delusion – maybe even a social construct – and that if we just pretend really, really hard that race doesn’t matter, it won’t. BIPOCs know better, and so do I. I come down on Lani’s side. Let’s set quotas and be done with it.
I’m tired of never-ending racial strife, endless court cases, perpetual foolishness about diversity, and claims that white people wrecked America for everyone else.
However, quotas for minorities in elected office are not the solution. We can’t stop there. They will keep blaming white people and wanting more and more and more from us. Quotas in government are just the beginning. Let’s make everything proportional, until minorities have their own institutions, their own communities, their tax bases, and eventually their own parts of the country.
And we have ours.
I’m just taking progressives at their word. They say it makes a difference what race your congressman is. And the mayor. And the police chief, and your teachers, and who writes the news, who runs the company, who gets the Oscars, who sits on the Supreme Court, who’s in the cabinet and even who’s going to the moon.
Progressives say race makes a difference everywhere, all the time.
If race matters that much, be consistent, fellas. Admit that it matters all the way. All the way to disengagement. Only when BIPOCs really do run the show – for themselves, with their own resources, and on their own responsibility – only then can they say, “Free at last, free at last. Great God almighty free at last.”
And you know what? White people will be free at last, too.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The best we can expect (as whites) is one step forward, two steps back.
This country is way past using voting, court cases, laws or debates to solve the problems in society. Also, don’t forget that lots of people make lots of money by managing to not solve societal problems. That racket isn’t going away anytime soon.
The photo of the Latino Student Union – almost all female with only two sweet looking boys – not a dangerous looking group of Brown Berets. And not hot giggly Latinas but plus-size ones dressed poorly – not a halter top or sundress to be found. The Talk of the Town Trailer Estates Park Sociology Round Table commented as follows on their Taco Tuesday Night meeting:
Granny Yiddell (bitter retiree) – No worries from that bunch. My husband of 40 years, Solomon, left me for a Filipina. He wouldn’t leave for those girls. I bet they don’t even know how to clean well.
Mother (strong woman) – Why don’t they fix themselves up to get a man? They’re not horrible, at least they’re young.
Jabber (crypto genius who is a shut-in) – They look like 13.2 miles of bad road. I’d prefer the big haired and light-skinned Black babes that are in all the TV commercials.
Father O’Hair (bitter wannabe priest) – They look immoral – at their ages, they should be fatter with two or three kids and a drunken husband in a wife beater. But I’m not stereotyping.
Bozero (Latino clown) – They look like the sort that flat out rejects a “pure hombre” like me. They’d object to my “macho” persona and want me to a submissive puppy like those two weiners in the photo. I ain’t drinking Bud Light.
Fiona (park fun lady) – They are no competition for me, it’s the Filipinas that chase the boys around. They have pert little breasts and slender bodies. Smooth skin. Wow, I’m getting excited myself. I’ll stay later with Mother tonight to “discuss” the issue more.
Bust the country up. Right, Jared.
Face it, it’s happening anyway. Access will be a bit painful at first. Black zones will probably hit truckers up for “user fees” but then it was Reagan who set the president for all that.
At some point the black zones might get lawless and no shipments of food, fuel, or much of anything will get through. Then it’ll be back to busting up roads and suburbs to grow and harvest food.
By then certain people of color might want to rejoin the rest of us. That may point to the REAL reason we need to rediscover the magic of impenetrable borders.
No distinction of corruption can be made between any of the government branches or their agencies. They are all duplicitous.
The above will never happen because in addition to being ugly, stupid, obnoxious and violent, Blacks are highly irresponsible and have very, very few resources.
After all, the entire Civil Rights movement was engineered by Jews to provide lucrative opportunities for lawsuits against Whites, and to make it easier for Blacks to have access to White money. It is not possible for Blacks to rely on their own resources. And Jews will continue to destroy civilization by using Blacks as foot soldiers in their war against Whites.
The ONLY solution is mass deportation of ALL nonWhites. Dump them all on Mexico. And this includes the satanic Jews. Jews are NOT White; they are, in fact, the self-declared enemies of Whites.
Jews themselves produce a lot of wealth. How about sharing a bit more of that wealth with their dark-skinned brothers?
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I have a question for you:
Are you also advocating in favor of overturning the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer SCOTUS ruling? After all, if private agreements to restrict free speech can be enforced even though free speech is a constitutional right, why couldn’t the same logic apply to government enforcement of private agreements that discriminate based on race, regardless of just how repulsive some people might view them? You do support freedom of association, correct? (This is also why you oppose anti-miscegenation laws in spite of your personal dislike of miscegenation, BTW.)
Looking at this from a neutral legal standpoint the SCOTUS just turned the 15th amendment and Voting Rights Act on their heads. They managed to amend the Constitution and rewrite a federal statute in one fell swoop. There is no guarantee of proportional racial representation in federal redistricting in either the 15th amendment or Voting Rights Act, yet that is what the SCOTUS delivered. And as we know that their loyalty is first and foremost to the new parallel “Civil Rights” Constitution that arguably supersedes the original Constitution written by those dastardly white males.
This is clearly a radical and activist ruling by the Supreme Kangaroo Court. Courts realize that Constitutional amendments require 2/3 majorities and are therefore difficult to pass so they now deliver activist rulings that achieve the same thing if the cause is in service of “civil rights”.
Plus John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, who crossed the aisle to give the radical left a win, didn’t want to be given cold shoulders at D.C. cocktail parties or be pilloried by the media.
Roberts and Kavansugh suck. The latter is a real asshole who turns left at the drop of a hat. Roberts was always a loser, giving us Obama care to appease black Hussein. No. I am tired of the damnation of this country and the demographic changes. It is a lost cause.
The Jews who run America will not give free and fair elections and representation back to us.
Gerrymandering is A-OK for the Democrats, but for the only two-party option for whites, no.
They can test our IDs, challenge our counts, but we may not challenge their frauds!
Reality label, supreme cons, riding previous scribblers ‘cons titution. Not a real contract, no such thing as signing contract ‘for others or ‘the people’. Spooner, or Murray Rothbard.
Should also know kelo v new london, private to private, or search judges ‘absolute immunity, or self regulated. self regulated, meaning, judges answer to no one. Not, not an ok situation. Natural law, effort is rule. If we don’t use natural law, effort, others take ability. They only continue to strike blows because people don’t shove back.
With that perspective consider many people damaged by ‘courts yet total cases the supreme cons take, eighty a year, eight zero. They claim out of ‘seven or eight thousand’, actualy probably closer to twenty to thirty thousand. Remember populn here obviously more than the cons claim. ‘state supreme cons also take way less than should and are also about perpaganda and scheming. The cons doing anti white goes on, along with other schemes.
Can see, instead of take cases that matter, they’re jabbering bs from – 1963 – to do perpaganda. I know of a case that was whole state affecting, everyone -except judges and ‘govt employees, hint, that should have been taken if court was a real thing, but was rejected. The lawyer that brought it was the only one though many could have, but most are also not what people assume.
They don’t have to pretend anymore because people do nothing, though, also they have been slick about setup on some things, so people are unaware, but many will be affected.
The nonsense subject of voting, to push govt in view of browns or blacks is nonsense, as the same time crap on everyone’s speech, with anti speech bs, and in every way. Here’s example wouldn’t recognize if not pointed out, ‘federal’ courts, if you file something, every page is stamped across the top with a fat blue stamp. Every page. Color is affecting, which if you had to file a complaint/lawsuit, which is probable to be more damage, not a fix, it’s equivalent to court cons taking a dump on every page. They know exactly what they’re doing, can search color pyschology but is obvious, red is alterting, blue is ‘calming’ etc. If you want words to be taken seriously you dont use ‘blue. Dumping blue on every page is subverting. There are fewer federal lawyers but still why haven’t they said no, because many also cons, and others don’t recognize its taking a dump on them. The cons subvert communicating in every way. ‘hate speech bs same thing, more obvious. People need to stop voting already. Get a clue.
Long before their monotheism or ‘state cons we were own judges, and enforced whatever with tribes and clubs. Not estrogen beer and tv clubs, wood.
Appreciate the article.