Anti-White Discrimination/Pro-Minority Privilege is Permissible—"By Definition"
March 14, 2009, 08:45 PM
Print Friendly and PDF
Unconstitutional, illegal, anti-white discrimination/pro-minority privilege is even institutionalized within law dictionary definitions! The following passage comes from a Tennessee study on the costs of capital vs. non-capital first-degree murder cases.
The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure differentiate between capital and non-capital trials by entitling both the prosecution and defense to additional peremptory challenges when the offense is punishable by death. Rule 24 requires that both parties receive 15 peremptory challenges for capital offenses, compared to eight for offenses punishable by incarceration for one or more years. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a peremptory challenge as �one of a party’s limited number of challenges that needs not be supported by any reason, although a party may not use such a challenge in a way that discriminates against a protected minority.’ The higher number of challenges may increase the size of the potential jury pool and the duration of the jury selection process.

[Tennessee’s Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences (PDF), by John G. Morgan, Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Research, July 2004, 37.]

Racial discrimination against whites, and on behalf of blacks and Hispanics is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and illegal, in violating the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, the very statutes that racial egalitarians purportedly treat as holy writ. In reality, the �egalitarians� are just like the majority of Supreme Court justices, about whom the old law professor—but don’t hold it against him—Lino Graglia, at last month’s Preserving Western Civilization conference said, �They just make it up as they go along.�