621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s not about his freedom, but one of the two courts that could charge him have the death penalty. His legal case is about avoiding that.
He was already convicted and sentenced to 1,000 years. So I don't think the death penalty was on the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like that's implied by the "balance" part of "checks and balances." It's also simply the fact that politics abhors a power vacuum. If one branch of government abdicates its power, that slack has to be taken up elsewhere.
I would have hoped it could be taken up by the people.
It could all spin based off of the next appointment.
But The Founders clearly thought Congress should be somewhere else than yelling from the sidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a different feeling. It wasn't empty in the sense that the desert is, which is very pleasant and beautiful, but scarred with industrialized agriculture, and silos stretching out into the infinite surrounding. The fact that there was absolutely nothing at all as far as the eye can see, no mountain or woods, just field upon industrial field with no farm house or town in sight, felt extremely isolating and uncomfo…
> The lack of minorities out in public was painfully glaring. What does this mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Co…
Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.
The problem with the 115th Congress is that Republicans have done a good job getting their base to believe that various policies are bad for the country, but when push comes to shove even they recognize that: 1 - they have no viable alternative, and 2 - that said policies are better than nothing.
You should not conflate one party's inability to govern with Congress being dysfunctional overall. When the Dems get control of all branches of government again, I fully expect to see the logjam clear up for at least a few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I agree. That could definitely get into some really sticky territory. I guess the other side is that a malevolent court could contrive those interpretations, and Congress would be only be able rectify the situation going forward. I don't know what the best solution is, but I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress. Still, it seems weird that Congress wouldn't get a say in determining what the…
> Still, it seems weird that Congress wouldn't get a say in determining what their own bills mean when there's a dispute. That's true, although you might argue that Congress should be clearer when they write their laws to begin with.
But we live a the world of common law tradition in the US. and law unfortunately or not does not behave like code.
One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…
We need to end the reservation system. No good will come of this system in the long term. We can end it either by making the reservations explicitly new nations (either fully independent or with protectorate status, like Micronesia or Palau), or they need to be integrated fully into the United States. In the long run, separate countries in one system does not really work (and yes, the states and feds are overlapping…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands. Oklahoma seems to have only five US Representatives (and two senators of course). It would be ridiculous if seven Congress members can hold a nation hostage. I don't understand the full implications of this ruling but I don't see how I can support breaking more promises because of political ga…
What do you mean? One senator has been holding the nation hostage for years. One .
I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored. Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553 In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and uphe…
I think treaties must be able to be reneged. And since Congress is signing the treaties, they should also have the power to renege.
Now there might be consequences for those actions (the counterparty might attack you, your allies may no longer trust you, etc) and those consequences are what keeps treaties stable.
The issue here is that the other party (Native Americans) has no power to enforce the treaty... But IMO, that is a public outrage issue and not a Constitutional issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worthyness only matters when the matter goes up to the SC. There are many layers of courts below them. If the SC decides the matter is not worthy, that doesn't mean that no decision is reached - it just means that the decision of the lower court is binding.
Yes, but it may be based on a flawed precedent that only the supreme court can overturn. There are also many circuit decisions which conflict with each other that SCOTUS has refused to address. In these instances the court is allowing one of those two plaintiffs to be screwed.
Only if the SC would have ruled differently from the lower court, of which there is no guarantee for any particular case.