311–320 of 1001 posts
As an aside.. whats up with that file photo Reuters is using? Is that somebody naked in front of the supreme court wearing just a fanny pack?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. That isn't an invitation for the executive branch (or judiciary) to overreach. In theory congress could go years without passing a single law, and that would be fine. It would signal that the current laws are sufficient. (As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so e…
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…
This is an inaccurate summary of the decision. The fact that you gave it, after giving an accurate summary of the dissent is very telling. It indicates that only a fool would trust you on political matters as you are a willful liar who does not respect your audience.
I eagerly await your correction and apology. Just kidding, I am fully aware that you have no respect for truth, and that you have no central morality.
> 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.
So let's say fraud has a standard tarriff of ten years. And we agree that committing two frauds is twice as bad, so we add them together. Still makes sense. And someone defrauded a LOT of people. Say sixteen THOUSAND. That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?
> 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…
The reality is everyone cares, they just disagree sharply on how to solve issues or which issues are priorities — to which the solution of several independent approaches seems reasonable.
When people in state A see that state B is doing much better because of policy X, they can choose to enact similar. I’m not sure I understand why they need to be compelled to adopt your preferred policies.
It’s interesting that you discuss “red states” being in need — but ignore the prolific violence in “blue cities” and poor trapped there.
As they say: Cure yourself, doctor.
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?
Conveying property to a non-member does not remove land from a reservation, and this ruling does not void any conveyances. Whoever owns the land, owns the land. This ruling just makes it clear that all of the land within the treaty boundaries is still a reservation. I don't know all of the implications this will have, but I imagine a lot of things done by the state of Oklahoma assuming they were operating within the state of Oklahoma may need to be reviewed, given that they were operating within the Creek Nation.
For example, can the state allow formation of counties and cities within the Creek Nation? What about if said counties and cities were formed inclusive of only land owned by non-members of the Creek Nation?
Of course, the court mentioned that Congress is free to stop honoring the treaty, the only requirement is that it must do it explicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.
Yes, it's called a life sentence. Nobody is expected to live a thousand years, and they're not going to keep them in prison after they die.
Judges are elected officials, so sometimes they like to make a nice big show of giving out a 1000 year sentence to appease the masses, when "life in prison without parole" would have done the same job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?
> 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…
The root problem here is the people who insist that their political beliefs should be implemented for everyone in the country, not just for the people around them who agree with those beliefs. This idea that "we can't leave anything up to local government because there might be some local government out there who disagrees with me" is why we have so much federal gridlock.
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…
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.
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…
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…
This is not specific to one party. There is someone out there, opposite to you, who says the same thing but replace red state with blue state. The root problem here is the people who insist that their political beliefs should be implemented for everyone in the country , not just for the people around them who agree with those beliefs. This idea that "we can't leave anything up to local government because there might…
I don't particularly care about self-inflicted wounds, but the splash damage upon the people whose lives they make worse in the offing is a damning indictment of this conception of federalism.
Shit's broken, and it's broken for the weakest among us, and it's only getting worse with the "drown it in a bathtub" corps stomping through the White House.