301–310 of 1001 posts
Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made. That is actually literally what it means. The way the Union is set up, there is a certain amount of consensus necessary to pass legislation over 50 States across 300+ million people. If there is a deadlock…
It does indicate a consensus is not met, and merely that; the GP claimed the this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on inaction, a leap in logic that is unfounded because it ignores the political game theory that is employed in obstructionism. It also ignores the fundamental brokenness of the system through a sort of circular logic: things didn’t change since they didn’t need…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating. "Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap m…
The more I learn about Justice Thomas, the more I like him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not surprising that there are differences. Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing justices is a rather existential question.
What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with our Constitution so it's just as existential.
The result of this is basically higher quality legislation: no loopholes to gain this Senator's support, no watering down or poison pills; but also, no extremist bills with clauses to trade away to buy support. The gov't passes the legislation it wants to, in the form it wants to, for good or ill. As a result, I believe, matters reaching the Supreme Court of Canada really are more narrow legal issues, not another avenue of attack on legislation. There can be significant rulings with broad implications, but overall, Canada's Supreme Court isn't a battleground because legislation isn't a mess offering a variety of vectors of attack. It's more internally coherent.
Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…
I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf "The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…
> "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law." Yeah, ok then. I guess that means we can start dunking Karens in rivers again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude#United_States_law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy, That's very peculiar specially American internet thing to say. In 1787 the terminology was still unsettled but it's not so today. In both political science and in the common use outside the United States democracy and republic are not excluding each other. United States is democracy (the source of power) and republic (the structure of the democr…
It's a democratic republic. This means that the individuals holding the positions of authority in the republic have more concentrated power than the citizens in the democracy. For example, SCOTUS has the power to turn down appeals, even when the circuit decisions are split. Logically, this means that they are denying the rights of one of those two (or more) plaintiffs.
> The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-largest city. McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a reservation?
> Tribe members who live within the boundaries are now set to become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes What about everyone else? Shouldn't they pay taxes to the tribe?