911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the only reason that Congress can revoke a promise to the Creek Indians is that they have a stronger military. It's not about justice, it's just about strength.
I expect someday Congress with revoke the promise of a social security check, when the system can no longer stand on its own.
> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court. Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.
- Sentencing to life without parole is considered inhumane - Criminal sentences should be proportional to the crime - Sentences are supermodular
Let's say there is a minimum sentence of two months for some insignificant crimes, start increasing the length for more serious ones. Most serious crimes usually involve several different crimes that are committed while committing the "main" component of the crime. So it starts adding up, and it starts adding up fast due to the supermodularity.
So even though the end result is seemingly absurd, trying to make it non-absurd would violate some of the most agreed-upon principles and here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to be "assigned moral guilt" to recognize atrocities from the past, their influence on the present state, and reparations that should be made.
It's kind of an interesting moral question though. Should immigrants have to pay reparations for the crimes of a state that neither they nor their ancestors were a part of? If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations? I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about…
The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when someone - like you - starts working for it. You are going to start, right?
I would if I believed in the system. The system has become an oligarchy where the ruling class is not subject to rule of law. The system ignores blatant violation of law by making frivolous excuses. For example, how can we allow people to wait years for a trial when the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial?
The world you allow to happen us the world you get. The blame falls on you this time. You get what you deserve if you let it.
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…
Wait, so congress can throw away promises at its whims that was supposed to last until perpetuity? And SC will be fine with that as long as promise was thrown away explicitly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so congress can throw away promises at its whims that was supposed to last until perpetuity? And SC will be fine with that as long as promise was thrown away explicitly?
That’s what it means for a legislature to be sovereign — you kind of need the ability for future people to reverse past decisions to have a functioning democracy
This came up in the Brexit controversies when the government tried to mandate an exit date as being immutable by future legislation, but the Speaker wouldn't have it. In that case some Brexiteers cried foul that it was overreach by the Speaker, but of course such a weapon could equally be used to make our membership of the EU irrevocable. It's a sound principle.
We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…
I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…
I think you are making this too much about personal blame, and sin, and ego. Your analogy falls apart right out of the gate because the premise is off. It's not about placing blame or making you feel bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. Yo…
What GP expresses is called white guilt, and it's brutally amplified by the media nowadays. If you don't feel bad for what your ancestors did, you're a terrible person... Even though you didn't have anything to do with their choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what about guilt for the quantitative benefits you derive from no other reason but the position of your birth, often at the expense or detriment of others who suffer from the position of theirs?
I understand the point, because one was born with more, one owes it to those born with less. Correct? I think that is an economical system argument than a moral argument. I don't find being born into ANY situation a reason to feel guilt or apologize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress? This would apply for whichever organisation is responsible for interpreting the existing law: there has to be some such organisation, with significant political power: especially where this power is centralised as in the US Supreme Court, rather than distributed. Giving the executive thi…
> Giving the executive this power I think you mean the legislative branch, since you say "Congress". Although the way most "law" is made now, Congress delegates so much of the details to executive agencies that the executive arguably does have the de facto power to re-interpret the laws passed by Congress.