Politicians know European-Americans are more diverse in their voting habits, often splitting their votes 50-50 between the two parties (or 40-30-30 between three parties). They also know blacks and mestizos are less ideologically and psychologically diverse, the former going 90+% Democrat and the latter 65-70% Democrat every time.
This is why all European-Americans must cast a wary eye toward legislation or legal rulings that attempt to curtail gerrymandering, the practice of dividing districts along racial lines to create “voting blocs”. Simple math illustrates why anti-gerrymandering disfavors European-Americans.
In a perfectly gerrymandered state, District 9 is 100% black, and District 8 is 100% white. From this partly-artificial (but only partly) political arrangement, we can expect District 9 to reliably vote Democrat nearly 100% of the time, and District 8 to vote GOP 52% of the time and Democrat 48% of the time.
Let’s also assume for the sake of clarity that the populations of both districts are the same.
Now this is what happens when anti-gerrymandering is forced on the districts, and they are redrawn so that, say, 25% of the blacks have moved (representationally) into the white district, and 25% of whites have moved (representationally) into the black district.
Those 25% of blacks continue voting 100% Democrat, while those 25% of whites continue splitting their votes 52-48% GOP-Dem. What is the end result? Well, where before (in the gerrymandered scenario) District 9 enjoyed the benefits of Democrat local governance and District 8 the benefits of Republican local governance, now District 9 still votes Democrat while District 8 has started to vote Democrat more as well.
The 25% of GOP-leaning whites have barely budged the Democrat advantage in District 9, lowering the Dem vote total from 100% to 87%.
[(o.75×1.00DEM) + (0.25×0.48DEM)] = 0.87DEM
But here’s what happens to the slight GOP advantage in all-white District 8 with the population shift to 25% black:
[(0.75×0.48DEM) + (0.25×1.00DEM)] = 0.61DEM
Did you see that? Don’t look away, because it happened quick as lightning. All-European-American District 8 went from voting for Democrats 48% of the time to voting for Democrats 61% of the time after their population was forced to politically accommodate 25% blacks.
End game: Both District 9 and District 8 become, for all practical purposes, Democrat strongholds.
And the Dem grip on those districts only becomes more pronounced as Diversity™ increases and the share of European-Americans, and the districts they control, decreases.
Now some of you are principled sorts and therefore are repulsed by the anti-democratic notion of gerrymandering as a way to “keep the peace” by making Dindugeld payments, and their consequences, more centrally located and removed from European-American scrutiny.
But we don’t live in an American Utopia of 90% European-American demographics (that time passed somewhere around mid-20th Century), when such a principled stance against gerrymandering could work in practice. We live in Diversity World™, and in this world high-falutin’ White Man privileged principles bow deeply to the blood-fueled pragmatism of tribalism. In Diversity World™, we don’t get the luxury of ideologically diverse whites arguing about street widths and weekend park rules; we get instead Everyone Not White driving drunk and shitting in the parks while ganging up on the few remaining Whites to fork over ever larger taxed remittances from their paychecks.
The elite know all this, which is why, next time you hear them lamenting gerrymandering, what they’re really opposing is a place where BadWhites enjoy the blessings of self-determination.

White nationalism is the answer.
LikeLike
[…] The War Against Gerrymandering Is An Anti-White Trojan Horse […]
LikeLike
dat’s wayciss
LikeLike
Gerrymandering is done by those in power to stay in power. You’ll lose out anyway the first time Dems get elected unless you can get to a point where there are just too many of you to change the results.
LikeLike
Why do they call it “Gerrymandering” instead of “ni66er rigging?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because there were no ni66ers involved when the phenomenon got its name.
LikeLike
were there Germans involved?
LikeLike
James, the guy’s last name was Gerry.
LikeLike
To add to this, it’s a portmanteau of “Gerry” and “salamander”, because that’s that the shapes of the redrawn districts were said to resemble.
LikeLike
Gerrymandering can also act against flooding the zone with Section 8 invaders and suchlike.
Well, in short the time to play democracy by Queensberry rules is long over, old chap, and it’s time whitey (not to mention dumb old beta) realized that too.
LikeLike
Section 8 IS the Chosen’s preferred method of gerrymandering.
LikeLike
They are coming up with new ways to describe it though since almost everyone can see Section 8 for what it is. My town is currently under attack with one of these new acronyms called “TIF”. Beware!
LikeLike
what is the whitest country on the planet?
Canada?
Findland?
why dont you move there?
LikeLike
What’s the blackest country on the planet?
Sierra Leone? Ghana?
Why don’t you move there?
LikeLike
Why move when I can just stay here and make this one black?
zing!
LikeLike
Poland is extremely nice and white. Please stay away from it Blondie.
LikeLike
I think polish girls are ugly. Would be worth a visit to see if they have The Real Femininity TM
LikeLike
You move. You don’t own the United States, hence you are not in a position to tell American citizens where they should be living.
LikeLike
Canada is full of fucking chings and liberals scared of guns. NO THANKS.
Fuck finland too, they’ve gone full retard too.
LikeLike
Better thtay with uth, honey.
LikeLike
That’s only Toronto lol
LikeLike
Canada is not that white anymore, our large cities are about 50% non-white and if I am not mistaken, I think it may have gone over 50% in Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal may have cross that threshold as well.
The leftist establishment that rules everything here ( despite a Conservative Prime Minister ) is in no hurry to publish the official numbers. They know more and more people oppose this race replacement program that our hard earned tax dollar pays for.
And we are one of the ” white” country which takes in the largest percentage of immigrants per capita. In absolute number it is small as we have a small population, but the race replacement program here is on steroid, believe me.
LikeLike
OK, so how many white fuck trophies have you produced?
LikeLike
i think they’re full of shitskins now too. I dare say Whitey’s shit out of luck anywhere he/she goes now.
LikeLike
It’s important to expose anti-gerrymandering for what it is, but local republicans in the whites districts won’t stop the the feds from pushing vibrancy for numerous reasons.
The problem is Jews. Unless you can afford the Hamptons or similar, there is pretty much no where to go at this point.
LikeLike
[…] The War Against Gerrymandering Is An Anti-White Trojan Horse […]
LikeLike
Blacks are primed for an alpha white man to stand up and take charge of the situation.
LikeLike
LOL….That was Charlie Manson’s plan. Start a race war, which blacks would win. But, when they realized they couldn’t govern themselves, presto!, here’s Charlie coming out of the bunker to take over.
LikeLike
Look at the voting district for Luis Guitierrez. He’s never leaving office.
LikeLike
Monarchy solves all of these problems.
LikeLike
Exactly
LikeLike
Somewhat off topic, but this story pretty much sums up modern male-female social dynamics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/30/a-wall-street-wolf-a-swedish-model-and-a-lurid-18-million-sexual-harassment-battle/
Alpha fucks, beta bucks. In this case 18 million from the beta sucker thanks to a New York Jury. Long story short, Wall Street CEO hires 25 year old assistant and sets her up with an apartment in New York. In a totally unforeseen turn of events, she becomes his mistress. He walks into his bachelor pad one day and finds her in flagrante delicto with a “club promoter” (read unemployed black grifter), and fires her and kicks her out, and like a raging Beta badmouths her to all and sundry. She sues his ass for sexual harassment, and a slew of other charges. It could have gone worse for the poor schlub, she actually sued him for 850 million but the jury only ended up awarding 18.
LikeLike
Skimmed through the article. Rich beta chink with a thing for white wimmenz apparently thought he could be like Tiger Woods. Both the intern and his wife are apparently disgusted with the thought of having sex with him.
And when women are disgusted in that manner, ka-ching! sexual harassment law$uit$!
[CH: nowag wey got screwed (metaphorically). bitch should have gotten nothing but a massive public shaming.]
LikeLike
bitch should have gotten nothing but a massive public shaming.]
Well, the article does point out her mudsharking.
LikeLike
Here’s another howler about an Asian beta with too much money.
LikeLike
his mistake was badmouthing to her everyone. she might have gone away quietly if he’d kept his cool and his mouth shut. nothing inspires a girl to lash out more than being publicly embarrassed and called out on her bad behavior. she then feels like she has to prove something or get payback.
if he’d kept cool about it and acted like it was no loss on his part, she probably would have come back begging for him to forgive her.
LikeLike
That’s his third mistake. His second was not having her sign an employment agreement that prevented a lawsuit. His first was not getting a 10 instead of a 5.
LikeLike
Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit.
LikeLike
Don’t hire a woman,hire a lawsuit. Diversity laws.
LikeLike
In the top shelf companies, the director of Human Resources is usually a black female and her job is to intercept potential lawsuits being brought by women and minorities by pretending to be “one of them”, gaining their confidence and ultimately distracting them with endless paperwork, meetings, questionaires… that wears down and confuses them till they just give up, or quit.
If you can’t go to an inspector general with a CHARGE of subversion; don’t even bother.
LikeLike
And, if you are able to get to an IG, never make a charge against the company; especially a charge of racism.
Always frame the charge in terms of a person or persons unknown subverting you in your duties to the agency/company.
LikeLike
we know most white libs are crazy, so with this newfound power they go all John Doe Swat team on your ass
LikeLike
CH, thanks for relinking The Wreck of the Beta Cuckold.
I am a Gordon Lightfoot fan too. (Tell no one!)
LikeLike
In gerrymandering, you adjust borders to fit the populace; in mass immigration, you adjust populace to fit the borders. The underlying motivation—creating voting blocs—is the same.
LikeLike
Dindugeld, lol.
Last two posts top-shelf.
LikeLike
Yeah, he keeps slinging those gems out there, doesn’t he?
That’s a beautiful turn of phrase.
LikeLike
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
All this is true, except keep in mind that the Left supported such gerrymanders when they were done under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act in order to enhance minority representation. the GOP has been complicit in such reapportionments since 1990 because it served to increase their numbers in legislative bodies by concentrating minorities into a handful of districts. Blacks, Hispanics, and Republicans won. White Democrats (there were more of them back then) lost big time.
LikeLike
Dark times ahead, in both senses of the word.
I disagree with Lew above that Jews are the real problem. The real problem are liberal hipster shitbastards of the type that infest Reddit, who empower Jews.
LikeLike
There are dark times ahead, in both senses of the word.
I disagree with Lew above that Jews are the real problem. The real problem are liberal hipster shitbastards of the type that infest Reddit, who empower Jews.
(Above was reposted as the comments system here deletes comments without notice)
LikeLike
You should worry less. The Voting Rights Act supports and in some cases practically mandates the concentration of minorities in minority/majority districts, so as to promote the election of minority legislators. And this feature of the Act is supported (shamelessly!) by Republicans, because by concentrating Democrat votes in these ghetto districts, it tends to reduce the total number of Democrats elected.
LikeLike
And most importantly it reduces the infiltration of undesirable minorities into their neighborhoods.
LikeLike
The wealthy so-called elite own both the republicans and the democrats. Each party takes the spear head of certain components of the overall agenda. There is a great deal of tag teaming when required. For instance we got both Bushcare and Obamacare. Obamacare being a version of Romneycare, much like what republicans proposed as an alternative to Hillarycare.
Now our bankster elite aims to break cities (and all units of government really) financially and on the city level that might be a reason to prefer democrats, but that’s about it. With the city broken financially it can buy up monopolies on public services for pennies on the dollar. For instance, the parking meters in Chicago. From there the bankers can extract tribute from the population for a very long time.
ultimately though district boundaries are drawn to keep those in power in power. Sometimes as play of one party against another.
LikeLike
This is interedting. It is a kind of varient of what Europe has of pluralities or proportional representation rather than winner take all in either-or absolutist bipolar americccca. I have long wished we had proportional rep like Europe, with coalition govs. Gerrymandering helps to give each people a voice, in a weaker way. No! They say. The powers say. Well we must become the powers then, and merrily
LikeLike
So you want a third party made by minorities who will choose who is in power. Nice.
LikeLike
No, the whites should wise up and merge themselves into one party. Stop splitting their vote and vote racially like everyone else does. Then we would have the white party and the nonwhite party, except some nonwhites (Asians) would probably go with the whites.
LikeLike
CH, you’re way off with this one. You’ve totally neglected the effect of the Voting Rights Act, section 2 of which (effectively) requires the creation of minority-majority and “minority opportunity” districts. The net effect has been the creation of minority Dem districts and white, largely Rep districts, In California, for example, which has created districts for Hispanics and Asians, the Reps are much better off with non-partisan districts. Further, the VRA has essentially wiped out white Dems in the House in the South even when a Dem takes that state in the electoral college. VRA has been the worst thing for white Dem incumbents have ever faced.
LikeLike
War: It’s the only way.
LikeLike
The bottom line to all this is that the repugs want the demonrats to win as much as the demonrats do. I wish I could chalk all this up to the repugs being goodintentioned folk who are just cowardly or stupid. At this point, the only answer is collusion. They are both trying to wipe out whites. Politics is just professional rasslin for the unathletic.
LikeLike
The future of the US is shit
LikeLike
I disagree because the assumption is the gop shits on white voters less than the Democrats. Gerrymandering can favor either party too depending on how it’s done, although Democrats who whine about it whine because it favors the gop. Not that either party gives one iota about white people.
LikeLike
The math is all wrong:
The numbers shouldn’t be written in terms of how often one party wins or loses because the writer proceeds to confuse this concept with the vote total. GOP wins 52% and DEM win 48% of the time is not the same as 52% of people vote GOP and 48% vote DEM.
If a white populus votes 52% GOP and 48% DEM with a stddev of 4pts, 68% of the time (NOT 52% of the time) GOP will win in an all white district.
But with a mixed district, from post’s example:
“But here’s what happens to the slight GOP advantage in all-white District 8 with the population shift to 25% black:
[(0.75×0.48DEM) + (0.25×1.00DEM)] = 0.61DEM”
DEM’s will win 99.7% of the time because the 12 point gap is 3 stddev’s in separation
LikeLike
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.IUntil the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.2The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today): *43 “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”10“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”11But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions….”14 One would think that sentence would continue: “… and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “… and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. *44 Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.IIBut what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise … from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. *45 Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SCALIA joins, dissenting. *46 The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.IThe majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 811–812, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property. U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“ ‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “ ‘fundamental rights’ ” protected by that document. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 953, 965, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 502, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment)).By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 14–562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare majority” of this Court, ante, at ––––, is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.1II *47 Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause at all—whether under a theory of “substantive” or “procedural” due process—a party must first identify a deprivation of “life, liberty, or property.” The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses.A1As used in the Due Process Clauses, “liberty” most likely refers to “the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 130 (1769) (Blackstone). That definition is drawn from the historical roots of the Clauses and is consistent with our Constitution’s text and structure.Both of the Constitution’s Due Process Clauses reach back to Magna Carta. See Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 101–102, 24 L.Ed. 616 (1878). Chapter 39 of the original Magna Carta provided, “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.” Magna Carta, ch. 39, in A. Howard, Magna Carta: Text and Commentary 43 (1964). Although the 1215 version of Magna Carta was in effect for only a few weeks, this provision was later reissued in 1225 with modest changes to its wording as follows: “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” 1 E. Coke, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45 (1797). In his influential commentary on the provision many years later, Sir Edward Coke interpreted the words “by the law of the land” to mean the same thing as “by due proces of the common law.” Id., at 50.After Magna Carta became subject to renewed interest in the 17th century, see, e.g., ibid., William Blackstone referred to this provision as protecting the “absolute rights of every Englishman.” 1 Blackstone 123. And he formulated those absolute rights as “the right of personal security,” which included the right to life; “the right of personal liberty”; and “the right of private property.” Id., at 125. He defined “the right of personal liberty” as “the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.” Id., at 125, 130.2The Framers drew heavily upon Blackstone’s formulation, adopting provisions in early State Constitutions that replicated Magna Carta’s language, but were modified to refer specifically to “life, liberty, or property.”3 State decisions interpreting these provisions between the founding and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment almost uniformly construed the word “liberty” to refer only to freedom from physical restraint. See Warren, The New “Liberty” Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 431, 441–445 (1926). Even one case that has been identified as a possible exception to that view merely used broad language about liberty in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding—a proceeding classically associated with obtaining freedom from physical restraint. Cf. id., at 444–445. *48 In enacting the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Framers similarly chose to employ the “life, liberty, or property” formulation, though they otherwise deviated substantially from the States’ use of Magna Carta’s language in the Clause. See Shattuck, The True Meaning of the Term “Liberty” in Those Clauses in the Federal and State Constitutions Which Protect “Life, Liberty, and Property,” 4 Harv. L. Rev. 365, 382 (1890). When read in light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see how the “liberty” protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from physical restraint. That was the consistent usage of the time when “liberty” was paired with “life” and “property.” See id., at 375. And that usage avoids rendering superfluous those protections for “life” and “property.”If the Fifth Amendment uses “liberty” in this narrow sense, then the Fourteenth Amendment likely does as well. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 534–535, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884). Indeed, this Court has previously commented, “The conclusion is … irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent.” Ibid. And this Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear to interpret the Clause as using “liberty” to mean freedom from physical restraint. In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.Ed. 77 (1877), for example, the Court recognized the relationship between the two Due Process Clauses and Magna Carta, see id., at 123–124, and implicitly rejected the dissent’s argument that “ ‘liberty’ ” encompassed “something more … than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison,” id., at 142 (Field, J., dissenting). That the Court appears to have lost its way in more recent years does not justify deviating from the original meaning of the Clauses.2 *49 Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.The founding-era understanding of liberty was heavily influenced by John Locke, whose writings “on natural rights and on the social and governmental contract” were cited “[i]n pamphlet after pamphlet” by American writers. B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 27 (1967). Locke described men as existing in a state of nature, possessed of the “perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” J. Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, § 4, p. 4 (J. Gough ed. 1947) (Locke). Because that state of nature left men insecure in their persons and property, they entered civil society, trading a portion of their natural liberty for an increase in their security. See id., § 97, at 49. Upon consenting to that order, men obtained civil liberty, or the freedom “to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.” Id., § 22, at 13.4This philosophy permeated the 18th-century political scene in America. A 1756 editorial in the Boston Gazette, for example, declared that “Liberty in the State of Nature ” was the “inherent natural Right” “of each Man” “to make a free Use of his Reason and Understanding, and to chuse that Action which he thinks he can give the best Account of,” but that, “in Society, every Man parts with a Small Share of his natural Liberty, or lodges it in the publick Stock, that he may possess the Remainder without Controul.” Boston Gazette and Country Journal, No. 58, May 10, 1756, p. 1. Similar sentiments were expressed in public speeches, sermons, and letters of the time. See 1 C. Hyneman & D. Lutz, American Political Writing During the Founding Era 1760–1805, pp. 100, 308, 385 (1983).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 14-556, 2015 WL 2473451, at *42-49 (U.S. 2015)
LikeLike
“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
-Antonin Scalia (2015)
LikeLike
As a white guy, I cannot understand why whites act so stupid about this. Every other race votes for their own. Indians (from India) are famous for it: if you hire an Indian leader in a company, soon his whole department will be sprouting Indians. Blacks vote for other blacks, but in companies they often hire whites because they know they need someone to get the work done. Hispanics tend to la Raza.
Whites believe in voting on the “issues”. What utter stupidity. You vote for the person you can trust the most, and that will have nothing to do with the “issues” presented for your distraction. The person you can trust is usually of your own race.
Everyone seems to understand this except whites. When will we get some street smarts and unplug from propaganda?
LikeLike
You know CH, while in theory I understand the point you’re trying to make and generally, there is some validity to it. But take a look at this below, and explain District 12 to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_congressional_districts#/media/File:North_Carolina_Congressional_Districts,_113th_Congress.tif
If you’re wondering, yeah it’s where the black people live. Now you know that makes no sense, parts of it could easily be absorbed by surrounding districts that would make far more sense geographically.
LikeLike