Supreme Court pulls a Pontius Pilate on gerrymandering


By which I mean, of course, that they have washed their hands of any responsibility for the single problem doing the most to divide our country and destroy our constitutional system:

I’ve got to go get some work done, but I thought I’d establish a place for talking about this shocking development.

As Kagan said in her dissent, “The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”

Sending it to the states — that is to say, the legislatures who created the problem and are highly motivated to perpetuate it — is indeed, as Harry Harris said, the fox guarding the henhouse.

What are we going to do as a country?

90 thoughts on “Supreme Court pulls a Pontius Pilate on gerrymandering

  1. David T

    I agree with their decision, this is not a federal issue it’s a state issue and for states to figure out. Until gerrymandering affects a federal election the Supreme Court doesn’t need to get involved. Take Jim Clyburn’s district, sure it’s for a federal position but he’s a representative of the state of SC.

    As far as I’m concerned, district lines should follow county lines. This whole drawing 2 block wide strips into a balloon area is just idiotic.

    1. Barry

      Uh, this decision makes sure that idiotic drawing of lines will continue use and get worse.

      The states have ZERO reason to change it. The party in charge draws the lines to benefit the party in charge. Without any recourse, citizens have no avenue to change it as the system is totally stacked against them.

    2. Barry

      Btw- exactly what “federal election” are you talking about? If the election of a member of the federal legislative branch of the government isn’t a federal issue, what office is?

      1. David T

        I think I explained that using Clyburn’s district as an example.

        This is a state issue, not a federal issue. There is not one federal partisan gerrymandering issue that I’m aware of. If you’re upset with the way SC draws it’s lines take it up with state leaders to change, or the state supreme court.

        1. Barry

          I don’t think anyone thinks it’s just a state issue.

          State leaders have no reason to change it just as state leaders had no reason to give black people the right to vote. It benefits them the way it is.

          1. David T

            Federal law would have required states to grant everyone the right to vote. For one reason, they have the right to vote in federal elections.

            1. Barry

              Yep, it had to since many states were not going to do the right thing. You made my point for me.

    3. Bryan Caskey

      I also agree with the majority opinion of the Court. Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The fundamental “province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison. However, sometimes the law says that the Court cannot answer a question because it is a “political question”.

      As much as people would like the Court to save us from our elected officials, it’s not the Court’s job to do so. For the Court to get into the business of drawing political districts would necessarily enmesh the Court in a political process and make value judgments about fairness.

      I would encourage you to actually read the opinion.

      1. Bryan Caskey

        Some states have begun addressing the issue already:

        One way they are doing so is by placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions. For example, in November 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creating multimember commissions that will be responsible in whole or in part for creating and approving district maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

        Missouri is trying a different tack. Voters there overwhelmingly approved the creation of a new position—state demographer—to draw state legislative district lines.

        Other States have mandated at least some of the traditional districting criteria for their mapmakers. Some have outright prohibited partisan favoritism in redistricting. See Fla. Const., Art. III, §20(a) (“No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”);

        Mo. Const., Art. III, §3 (“Districts shall be designed in a manner that achieves both partisan fairness and, secondarily, competitiveness. ‘Partisan fairness’ means that parties shall be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal efficiency.”);

        Iowa Code §42.4(5) (2016) (“No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or other person or group.”);

        Del. Code Ann., Tit. xxix, §804 (2017) (providing that in determining district boundaries for the state legislature, no district shall “be created so as to unduly favor any person or political party”).

        It can be done. It’s not an entirely unsolvable problem.

        1. Mark Stewart

          The court erred on this decision. They took the easy way out. I agree that the specifics of how courts could address gerrymandering are difficult, likely unsatisfactory, and even more likely unworkable by judicial fiat. That said, the court DID have a responsibility under the constitution to say that the politicians have a duty to represent the people, to make that principal clear to all. They punted on that – well the Federalists did anyway; Justice Kagan was clear she saw that there was a responsibility before the court.

          There are only two possible mechanisms to Constitutionally “police” the politicians: 1) the courts and 2) the voters. When the politicians stack the deck against the voters, there is only one entity that can stand up for the disenfranchised – the courts. This ruling will soon be revisited, that seems clear to me. It’s flawed jurisprudence, myopic in its perspective.

      2. Mr. Smith

        The same might’ve been said of the inequities caused by racial segregation in schools, since schools are an inherently state/local matter. Under this court’s “reasoning,” Brown v. Board likely would’ve been decided the other way. It’s very disappointing that this court chose to cleave to conservative dogma and sidestep the issue of genuine justice.

        1. Bryan Caskey

          The Court didn’t base it’s decision on gerrymandering being a state/local matter. To claim this decision conflicts with the holding of Brown means you’re confused about either this opinion, the opinion of Brown, or both.

          1. Mr. Smith

            I’m not the least bit confused about matters of equitability, whether it be with respect to schooling or voting. I do not care about the tortured legal reasoning those with an enfeebled concern for the soul of justice take to reach an inequitable decision. Had the court’s majority been the least interested in justice unprejudiced by their conservative legal “philosophy” it would’ve found an argument in the law for it.

            As Justice Kagan wrote, the majority “abdicated” its responsibility and went on to point out that “courts across the country … have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Those standards satisfy the majority’s own benchmarks.” (See: p. 54 et seq.)

            I stand with the dissenters.

            1. Bryan Caskey

              I’ll conclude with this: If all of your decisions as judge coincide with your political positions and personal values, you’re doing it wrong.

              I would love for gerrymandering to end. All its ills, as Brad has mentioned, are the cause of so many other problems.

              1. Barry

                Yet many judges make decisions based on their political views all the time.

                On many issues judges are as as predictable as anything else in politics.

              2. Mr. Smith

                If you really would “love for gerrymandering to end,” you’d not begin by saying “I agree with the majority opinion of the court” in a way that makes it seem as if it were the only legitimate conclusion under law, when obviously it isn’t.

                1. Doug Ross

                  But isn’t it true that in a 5-4 decision, both sides have what they would call is a “legitimate” conclusion? It’s just one side disagrees with the other.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    Not really. At least, not in the strictest definition of the word “legitimate,” which is “allowed by law,” or “according to law; lawful.”

                    Which one would expect, since it comes from the same root as “legal:” it’s from the Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare, “make lawful, declare to be lawful.” The original root, of course, is lex, and I don’t mean Lex Luthor.

                    Whatever the 5 out of 9 rule becomes law; what the 4 say is a dissenting opinion. It’s a sort of lovely parting gift for those upset with the ruling: Thanks for playing!

                    Of course, if you meant “legitimate” in the sense of “reasonable and acceptable,” you may be right. I’d have to see the dissent in order to judge that for myself, since that is subjective judgment…

                    1. Bryan Caskey

                      “I’d have to see the dissent in order to judge that for myself, since that is subjective judgment…

                      Here’s a link to the opinion of the Court.

                      Majority opinion starts on PDF page 6; Justice Kagan’s dissent starts on PDF page 40.

                      On an unrelated note, this morning in 1863, the first fighting around a town named Gettysburg began.

                    2. Brad Warthen Post author

                      By the end of the day, John Buford will have defended some very good ground.

                      This time of year in 2005, I was in that part of the country, and the place was crawling with Yankee re-enactors. A column I wrote about it at the time was one of the first I ever posted on my new blog.

                      But at one point, I encountered several horses tied up in the parking lot behind our hotel in Shippensburg.

                      I determined that they belonged to some Confederate cavalry re-enactors, who had gone inside for some drinks at the bar.

                      So now you know what JEB Stuart was up to while Lee was wondering what had happened to his “eyes”…

                2. Mark Stewart

                  Some comments to Roberts’ opinion:

                  The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and considered what to do about them. They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” pg 10

                  “At no point was there a suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play. Nor was there any
                  indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts doing such a thing. ” pg 11

                  “To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities. ” pg 12

                  I believe these three quotes highlight some of the fundamental errors of Roberts’ approach to this complicated issue. Shot through all of these is one fundamental shortcoming that is obvious from our present vantage point. In the Founders’ time political parties were living, changing, dying and multi-party competitive – they did not have a two party entrenched system as we do now. So all the rationalization of the political checks and balances of the past have been removed in our present.

                  And beyond this, to say that at the dawn of our Constitution that no one “had ever heard of courts doing such a thing” [adjudicating political representation standards under our Constitution] is a total set-up for the modern day Federalist Society viewpoint. Our Founders recognized that they were creating something entirely without precedent in modern history, which is why they understood that balance between the branches was an essential element to a democratic Republic. The court was to play an equal role in defending this sense of equilibrium. Today’s Federalist Society sees no need for balance; equilibrium is not their ideal, a dominate reactionary theology is their desire. Roberts’ does a fair job making his opinion sound reasonable and reasoned, however, at it’s heart it is oblivious to the lessons of our history.

                  Everyone recognizes that districting IS an inherently political exercise and that perfect justness will never be achievable – and might not actually be worth the effort. But it is not rationally difficult to see that the Supreme Court has a central role to play in securing our freedoms and rights under the Constitution. In this the five justices last week will find themselves overruled in the not too distant future with a more vigorously modeled role for the courts in our election representation.

                3. Mr. Smith

                  The assertion was that the court cannot address “political” issues. This is absurd on its face. The court has and does address political matters all the time, in particular the harm resulting from political policies and actions. If the objection is that they shouldn’t, then the court can pretty much close its doors and go home. But as Kagan points out in her dissent, it wasn’t necessary for the court to inject itself politically, because the matter before it was fundamentally one of law. Drawing on the same Marbury v. Madison quote cited above, she points out that lower courts did precisely what the quote called for: their decisions, she notes, “had not a shred of politics about them. Contra the majority … this WAS law.” She then closes: “Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”

  2. Doug Ross

    “What are we going to do as a country?”

    Win elections at the state level and change the laws? Is anything preventing Democrats from winning the SC legislature? Or maybe you could consider term limits to make the turnover of entrenched old politicians more frequent. New politicians = new ideas.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      To win elections, you have to have districts that aren’t carefully drawn to make sure you lose them.

      That’s the problem. Or one of the problems. The other, and this is more insidious, is that when the district is drawn so that only one party can win, the only thing an incumbent worries about is an opponent who is more extreme than he or she is. So incumbents and challengers keep getting more and more extreme, and that’s the way they govern in office, and things just keep getting worse…

      1. David T

        So what’s your solution to having the lines redrawn? Have the US Supreme Court Justices redrawn state district lines?

        1. Barry

          The solution was never to have the Supreme Court draw the lines. But for the court to say there is no role for federal courts to even oversee the process at all is a step that guarantees the disenfranchisement of voters.

          The North Carolina map was explicitly crafted to have 10 generally safe Republican seats out of 13 overall. In November’s election, Democrats won 48% of the state’s overall House vote but could end up with only three districts.

          1. David T

            And Democrats wouldn’t be happy until lines were drawn so that they had all 13 seats. However they’d be redrawn is only going to make maybe 50% of that state’s citizens happy. It’s a state’s decision as to how their representatives are selected. This is just more of today’s minority rule. Those in the minority will scream, march, protest, etc… until they get their way. Kind of a spoiled brat syndrome.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              “It’s a state’s decision as to how their representatives are selected.” It’s not a STATE’s decision. It’s the decision of the party currently holding power in a Legislature — which has been the GOP in SC for three decades now, because they got to draw the lines at the beginning of the period in which technology made it truly practicable for politicians to choose their voters, instead of voters choosing politicians.

              And majorities have nothing to do with it. Or rather, the only “majority” that counts in the majority in the legislative body, which tends to belong to the party that managed to draw the lines. You can have a state where 60 percent of the population votes Democratic, yet the legislature — the people who draw the lines — is 70 percent Republican. How do you do that? It’s simple: You draw a few districts that are 90 percent Democratic, and then you draw a lot MORE districts that are 60 percent Republican.

              The game is thus rigged, and it really doesn’t matter what a “majority” of the state wants…

              There are states where it’s the other way around, and Democrats are drawing the lines. But I’ve never lived as a voter in any of those. AND… indications are that Republicans figured out this game long before Democrats wised up. They’ve got a huge head start.

              And you know what? I don’t WANT to see Democrats able to do what Republicans do. I want the power to choose our representatives taken from parties, and given to us individual voters….

              1. David T

                So that’s the problem, what’s the solution? I get tired of hearing about problems and no solutions. It’s called whining. Had the Supreme Court voted the other way what would be done?

                1. Scout

                  Divide states into a grid. Use a systematic method going left to right or something like that to make districts until you reach a certain population size needed for the district, then start the next one, continuing in the same systematic way.

                  Basically something systematic without regard to any knowledge of where certain kinds of voters are.

                  ….is what I would propose.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    Yeah, this is one of those few times when ignorance would be a virtue. The ideal people to draw the lines would have zero idea how the people in this or that neighborhood vote…

                    Some of y’all are always wanting inexperienced people to get into public service. This would be something they could do that could actually be helpful…

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      Still shaking my head over that “win elections” thing. Like you actually think we have fair elections in apportioned districts.

      This long ago ceased to be something that the political branches were going to fix. Everybody in office got there through this system.

      That’s why the courts were the only recourse.

      And no, term limits aren’t the way. You know what we’d likely get if suddenly no incumbents could run? A bunch of even more extreme ideologues from the same parties — because of the way the districts are drawn. Yes, it is theoretically possible that you’d get some new people who would, in their ignorance of what is in their parties’ interests, favor reform. But how long do you think that would last?

      You also have the problem that the incumbents are no more interested in enacting term limits than they are in redistricting reform.

      Anyway, it’s not a “solution” to start telling voters whom they can’t elect. The solution lay in the courts.

      And I don’t usually say that. Normally, I prefer legislation, not court fiat. But on this issue, the legislative branch is corrupted…

      1. Doug Ross

        So the problem is the politicians who lead the Republican party in South Carolina? I forget… what are their names?

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          Here are the entire lists, House and Senate. They’re the ones with the R after their names.

          It’s not two or three guys, Doug. It just isn’t. If it were, I’d name them for you. But it’s the whole gang. If you find some who convince you they truly want reform, take them off the list. You’re still going to have a long list…

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            And let’s suppose that one of the “leaders,” say Speaker Jay Lucas, decided to make it a personal crusade to remove reapportionment from the hands of the politicians.

            How long do you suppose he would REMAIN speaker? Not long.

            Rank-and-file members might go along with “leaders” on some things. And in Jay’s case, he’s accomplished some REAL leadership on roads and on education reform.

            But when you propose to “re-form” the way the members are elected, you’ve gone to messin’…

          2. Doug Ross

            So why not call them all out individually as gutless, corrupt, self-serving hacks? If this is an existential crisis, why aren’t Democrats in the State House making this a major issue? Maybe because the ones who are there know they reap the benefits as well?

            I never understand the attitude of “this is a major problem!!!!!!” but “I’m not really going to put a whole lot of effort into fixing it”. Because… you know.. they all have to get along and be buddies like Cindi said recently . “Want to know a secret about our legislators? They get along.” All nice guys who you want to have a beer with… fixing this is going to take making some legislative colleagues unhappy by holding them accountable in public and opening them up to scrutiny. If nobody on the Democratic side has the guts to do it, stop talking about it and whining about the Supreme Court not making everything better.

              1. Scout

                He’s the Senator. Caskey is the rep. At least those are my people, and I think Brad may have the same ones. I live right near the Zoo botanical gardens.

                1. Doug Ross

                  He should push harder. It’s not difficult unless you want to still be able to slap your Republican pals on the back at the local watering hole.

  3. David T

    This whole issue is partisan, those who are upset are those who’s party is at a disadvantage. Those happy area those who’s party currently has the advantage. Who is to determine how the lines are drawn to make everyone happy? The only way to do it effectively is go by some pre-existing, non-partisan boundaries such as existing county lines.

    1. Barry

      I’m upset because the current system is one of a outright abuse and it disinfranchises citizens.

      I don’t care what political party is in charge that does it as I hate botH political parties and I’m not a conservative or a liberal.

      1. David T

        So how do you think the lines should be drawn? I”m not disagreeing with you, one look at Clyburn’s district proves that the system is screwed up.

        1. Barry

          I don’t know what the lines should look like. That’s not my job. I am not privy to the data or possible scenarios.

          I do know that without any court oversight, there is no reason every district shouldn’t be drawn just like Clyburns. North Carolina republicans were trying to do just that. The SCOTUS just gave them the go ahead.

          1. David T

            Like I’ve said, this is a state issue not a federal issue. The federal level only wants X-number of representatives from each state they don’t care how they’re selected or where they come from. That is for the state system to determine how those representatives are selected. If anything this case should not have gone any higher than the state Supreme Court systems.

          1. David T

            In selecting demographers (if that really is a word or title), would you ask them their party affiliation during the interviewing process? I don’t know how you’d get a 100% impartial committee. You’d have to go with some sort of pre-existing boundary lines.

            1. Barry

              Maybe. Maybe select only those, like me, that aren’t affiliated with any party or ideology an hate the idea of both.

        2. Brad Warthen Post author

          I’m glad you see that. But when you look at that district, do you know what you’re looking at? You’re looking at the result of Republicans drawing black voters out of the other six districts.

          For awhile, black legislators thought the GOP was doing something that benefited the black caucus. Which is why they voted with the GOP against the white Democrats after the 1990 census. I think they wised up later — they had created a GOP majority that wasn’t ever going to care about working with the black caucus — but it was too late. Once the GOP got that advantage (they almost immediately captured the House, and a few years later the Senate), they’ve been drawing the lines more and more in their favor ever since.

          Clyburn knew better in the 90s. He said back then that he didn’t need THAT many Democratic voters to win. But the GOP was determined to keep being that “generous” to him…

          1. David T

            I don’t have an answer, and it’s not like anyone would listen to me anyway so I don’t put a lot of time into thinking about it. I’ve posted my solution, make districts for US Representatives based around county lines. Now how would I do state representative district lines? I don’t know, township lines maybe, school district lines maybe?

            1. Barry

              There is no answer. The SCOTUS, today said the majority party in each state can do anything they want to do.

  4. Bob Amundson

    SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts is a chameleon; swing vote for the conservative gerrymandering ruling, swing vote for the liberal census ruling.

    1. Barry

      Not really. I’ve already read a good piece about the census vote and opinion. It’s a roadmap for the administration to come back to the court in a month or two on how to win the case.

      1. Bob Amundson

        I agree, but it is unlikely there is time to do that – we’ll see. A ruling the other way would have been a disaster for an accurate census. I am not a big fan of the decennial census; my research interests more often lead me to the American Community Survey.

  5. Mark Stewart

    Our modern two-party political system evolved because it is the most rational way to consolidate political power under our constitutional framework. The most shocking thing – to me anyway – about the Republican party of this century is its willingness to defy both the spirit and the words of the Constitution to feed the desire for consolidated power. I don’t think I understand what the goal is; and doubt anyone within the party leadership, it’s strategic and tactical advisors, or the elected officials themselves understands where they are headed when they take this path.

    Undermining our democratic Republic has two possible outcomes: dictatorship or mob rule. That’s it. There is no enduring state where one party negates our country’s very foundational structures and continues to maintain cohesive power. I’ve never thought much of the Federalist Society – view its activities as the very definition of “the deep state” – but they have pushed so hard to prevail with their twisted sense of “Constitutional Originalism” that it ought to be obvious to everyone that the goal isn’t to go back to what our Founding Fathers discussed, debated and worked out, but instead to push for a radical right wing theology that falls outside of our Constitutional Republic.

    On the most important question that could possibly come before the court the five Federalist Society supreme court justices voted to undermine the most central idea of our Constitution, the intertwined system of checks and balances that demand debate and compromise. The five chose to vote in favor of the states over the people. That is an incredibly ill-advised step; and the primary reason the court itself was established. Roe v Wade pails in comparison to the threat to our liberties that this ruling creates.

    It isn’t that SCOTUS voted 5-4 to say that they find no easy answers to the question of gerrymandering; and that the case they took up may not be the perfect setup for a lasting ruling. No, the court voted to say that the majority of the states (and consequently/possibly the Federal Government) hold power greater than the people. It defies all rational thought to not believe Madison or (even) Hamilton would have been appalled by this gerrymandering ruling. “It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force” as the Federalist Papers say by way of introduction to the viewpoint to be expressed. With this ruling the five judges have chosen to declare the opposite; they have stated the people cannot be trusted as capable.

  6. Harry Harris

    As I stated in another post, Fox, welcome to the henhouse. The state legislatures have done the deck-stacking, and those in power will do nothing to correct the travesties that have given it to them. At least state supreme courts are somewhat faster-acting than the SCOTUS, but these 5 “justices” have continued a Republican power-grab that was ruled against at every level until it reached them. Almost all of the states that use a somewhat neutral independent commission to redistrict are Democratic Majority states. The oligarchy advances, thanks to McConnell’s indefensible move to leave the Gorsuch seat open. Too bad Kennedy felt his private life was more important than the future of democracy. It can all turn on a small margin. Too bad we are so polarized.

  7. David T

    ” Too bad Kennedy felt his private life was more important than the future of democracy. ”

    Do you plan to work at your job until they carry you out feet first?

    1. Harry Harris

      I was too harsh-sounding. It is his personal life. I don’t blame him, I just think it’s tragic for the nation. We all retire for different reasons. He found his, I guess.

  8. bud

    The Supremes batted .500 on election issues. As Brad noted they botched the Gerrymander issue. But at least they (sort of) got the census question right.

    1. Harry Harris

      Too bad outcomes the issues weren’t reversed. We will feel the effects of the gerrymandering case earlier, more profoundly, and longer than the census issue. The split serves Roberts’s facade as being a slightly moderate member. He knows what he’s doing – and has done to the country.

      1. Barry

        Republicans managed to both maximize their advantage and minimize Democratic power by drawing district lines to pack as many Democrats as possible into three districts, and then cracking other potentially Democratic districts in half or thirds, diluting the Democratic vote to create safe Republican districts.

        The League of Women Voters, one of the challengers in the case, pointed out that the GOP had even split predominantly Democratic Greensboro so that half of the dorms at historically black North Carolina A&T State University were put in one Republican district, and half in another.

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Yep, that’s parties for you. Which is why I hoped the courts would take it away from the parties. In South Carolina we’ve only seen it done by Republicans in this past generation, but that’s because they’re so dominant here…

          2. Barry

            You are the only one arguing one party (as if one party does it). That wasn’t even up for debate.

  9. Bill

    Good News!

    The New York Times: More Whites Dying Than Being Born In A Majority Of U.S. States
    Deaths now outnumber births among white people in more than half the states in the country, demographers have found, signaling what could be a faster-than-expected transition to a future in which whites are no longer a majority of the American population. The Census Bureau has projected that whites could drop below 50 percent of the population around 2045, a relatively slow-moving change that has been years in the making. But a new report this week found that whites are dying faster than they are being born now in 26 states, up from 17 just two years earlier, and demographers say that shift might come even sooner.

      1. David T

        Are you people (Brad included) serious? You’re happy that the white population is declining in this country? Do you really hate white people that much? I’m actually surprised that not only did Brad allow that post, but he responded to it. Would he have approved a post where someone said they were glad that the black or hispanic population was declining in this country?

        I guess you don’t have a problem with the current culture of other non-white countries such as Mexico, most if not all of Central and South American, and African countries. They’re such stable and well run countries, and vacation hot spots for families. What you are stating is that you are hoping the US to become just like those countries.

        If you want a preview of how things will look, look at how it’s working in a smaller scale such as Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis and the list goes on and on. Would you move your family to any of those cities?

        But it won’t really matter to the majority of us here, we’ll be dead by 2045, it’ll be your kids and grandkid’s problem to deal with.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          I don’t think I said in any way that I was happy with it. Nor did I think it appropriate to joke about, as Bill was doing. Some of the reasons for it are quite tragic…

        2. Bill

          I made a racist comment about a racist Supreme Court decision;fighting fire with fire,etc.I’m sorry if you were offended.

        3. Barry

          And no, I’m not “happy” that white birth rates are declining. It’s a non issue for me. I’m not happy or pessimistic about it.

  10. Bart

    When I said my last post was it, I meant it. But, going back on my word, this is my last post – promise. I am commenting for several reasons David T posted that hit home on a very personal level. After almost 54 years of marriage, my “white” wife passed away on the morning of June 19th. So, congratulations to all of you who are celebrating the fact that all of us older “white folks” will be gone soon. One more you won’t have to contend with is no longer a taxpayer, on the voter’s roll, no longer part of the upcoming census, no longer a burden to the ever-growing anti-white faction in this country and on this blog. She was one of the kindest, gentlest, generous, and most loving individuals I have ever known. And as the old saying goes, “she didn’t have a mean bone in her body”. Truth, honor, honesty, and responsibility were the standards she lived by and never relented in one of them for self-serving purposes. Skin color didn’t matter because it was the outside of a person. She was only interested in what was on the inside.

    Yet as intimated in the comment by Barry, the “old white” people have screwed everything up. Well, maybe it is time to let the people of other colors correct the heinous actions of the “old white people” who are racist, homophobes, or any other “triggered” label you want to hang on us. As David T noted, how many are willing to move to one of the cities or countries that are rift with corruption, crime, mass murders, poverty, and have governments that are so efficient and well run? How many are willing to move to one of the many countries where gays are executed? How many are willing to leave this country and settle in Venezuela and live under the oh so generous and benevolent Maduro’s government? Maybe go to Cuba where life is so wonderful, and the citizens are given everything they need including superior health care according to the dissidents residing in their wealthy enclaves in this country. Or consider other countries that are more suited to your particular emotional requirements.

    Based on so many of the comments posted recently, one would conclude we are living under the worst possible government in history even worse than the Third Reich or Stalin’s Russia. Maybe Pol Pot would suit your ideal much better, apparently what we have in this country is too third rate for you.

    Celebrate the good news while you can. I hope you are around to enjoy the benefits coming your way gained off the backs of those who made sacrifices that counted, not some perceived snowflake “triggered” comment, slight, or insult. I am sure the “Greatest Generation” and those who come before them will be proud to see what their sacrifices wrought.

    Did I take the remarks personal? Yes, I did.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Bart, I am so terribly sorry for your incalculable loss.

      I just don’t know what to say beyond that, except that it horrifies me that anything you could have read here could have added to your pain.

      I pray that God help and strengthen you through this terrible time…

  11. Bill

    Dirge Without Music
    I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground.
    So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind:
    Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned
    With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.

    Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.
    Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust.
    A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew,
    A formula, a phrase remains,—but the best is lost.

    The answers quick and keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,—
    They are gone. They are gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
    Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve.
    More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.

    Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
    Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
    Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
    I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.

  12. bud

    Just did the math. In the 2018 election the Democrats won the popular vote by 8.7%. Not counting the NC district that is in disputebut including one NC congressman who just died that is in dispute they have and edge of 235-199. That is an 8.3% edge for the dems. Bottom line: Dems can overcome gerrymandering with a good voter turnout. What they cannot survive is voter suppression.

    1. David T

      ” What they cannot survive is voter suppression.”

      So what they can’t survive is something that does not exist, or only exists if someone does nothing to get themselves qualified to vote. Unless you’re homeless you have a current residence, state ID’s are free or at a very reduced fee. With elections scheduled every two years, it doesn’t take a person two years to register to vote. College students can actually vote twice, in SC they can vote at the local poll and if they choose to they could mail in a ballot from their home state. Since the majority of college aged students vote Democratic, the Democrats should actually receive more votes than voters.

      How many people in this country do not have a valid ID or a street address? If they are unable physically to go to the polls, they can mail in a ballot. Voter suppression my @$$.

      1. David T

        Democrats are pushing for illegal aliens the right to vote, how are they going to qualify to register? State issued ID’s? Those 200 year old US citizens should be able to follow the same process if they can’t provide a valid birth certificate for an ID.

Comments are closed.