391–400 of 1001 posts
Is everyone purposely overlooking the fact that a rape conviction got overturned? That's not good news
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone deserves a vigorous legal defense, even the most reprehensible. If the accused or convicted are exempt from the rule of law, so are those who are accused or convicted by mistake, corruption, or abuse of power. Competent and committed legal defense for everyone defends the rule of law as it's applied to all of us.
Yep, but it also doesn't change that this particular person might be let free. I think it's OK to feel a little ambivalent about this ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…
The filibuster doesn't help the situation and seems like a mechanism designed to encourage obstruction. Until we do away with it, I fear we'll be stuck with the status quo.
The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen from them.
No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent. Maybe if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car. I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being h…
It's almost as if they stole part of your country from you, ignored your laws and customs and forced you to submit to their authority without your consent. That must just be terrible.
Does anyone know the status of private land, not belonging to tribe members, now considered within the reservation? Can it be confiscated by the tribe?
Here is a recent significant case about this matter where the courts sided with the non-Indian private land owner regarding a permit he received from the county even though he refused to also go through the Reservation's own permit process: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1651530.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own? Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them. Even every "red state" has plenty of people in need who can't afford to go elsewhere and shouldn't b…
> Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them. I'd be inclined to agree with you, expect I feel this is what got us Obamacare instead of a better system - and _even then_, there was a multitude of red states that refused to accept the Medicaid e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them. You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the result…
I find it amusing that you hold a blanket thought that the theft of Native American land was the result of war games and not a mixture of deception, racism, genocide, breach of trust, and thievery.
Were there rules against that? And if so, who would enforce them?
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…
> This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.
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…
Thanks. You helped me understand better.