- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,277
- Reaction score
- 59,174
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Don't even get me started on that whole "history and tradition" nonsense, its so transparent.Yep - sounds like it! Well said!
Don't even get me started on that whole "history and tradition" nonsense, its so transparent.Yep - sounds like it! Well said!
I have no direct knowledge. We had guy in the unit @ Ft. Bragg. He was going to return to Chicago to become a LEO. He was ok with ”chief.” You never know anymore, especially as the term refers to the explorers thinking that they had successfully sailed around the known world.Lots of them refer to themselves as “Indians”. And I don’t think they claim it as a word only they can use. At least my exe’s boss doesn’t.
I agree, they cherry-pick the convenient “history.”Don't even get me started on that whole "history and tradition" nonsense, its so transparent.
Lots of them refer to themselves as “Indians”. And I don’t think they claim it as a word only they can use. At least my exe’s boss doesn’t.
Just another in a long string of federal decisions to abuse First Peoples of America.Supreme Court rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands
The opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states.www.axios.com
--
Fast on the heels of the Bruin (Roe) decision, the headline announcing this decision - above - immediately jumped-out at me, setting-off my 'ah-ha' detector!
It seems perhaps the Justices anticipate the theory where abortion, like gambling, might operate legally in the Native-American tribal areas that exist within states restricting abortion. The ruling above, would seem to possibly pro-actively preclude this jurisdictional loophole.
Is the above ruling & opinion merely coincidental? Am I seeing more here, than there is?
I think you’re seeing more here than there is. This decision is consistent with the Court’s decision in Denezpi v. United States earlier this term - in which the Court decided that it is not double jeopardy for the Federal government to prosecute you twice for the same crime in tribal court and US Federal Court for a crime committed on a reservation. Their reasoning was that the person is prosecuted under two different sets of law representing separate and distinct sovereigns.Supreme Court rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands
The opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states.www.axios.com
--
Fast on the heels of the Bruin (Roe) decision, the headline announcing this decision - above - immediately jumped-out at me, setting-off my 'ah-ha' detector!
It seems perhaps the Justices anticipate the theory where abortion, like gambling, might operate legally in the Native-American tribal areas that exist within states restricting abortion. The ruling above, would seem to possibly pro-actively preclude this jurisdictional loophole.
Is the above ruling & opinion merely coincidental? Am I seeing more here, than there is?
Just another in a long string of federal decisions to abuse First Peoples of America.
I think you’re seeing more here than there is. This decision is consistent with the Court’s decision in Denezpi v. United States earlier this term - in which the Court decided that it is not double jeopardy for the Federal government to prosecute you twice for the same crime in tribal court and US Federal Court for a crime committed on a reservation. Their reasoning was that the person is prosecuted under two different sets of law representing separate and distinct sovereigns.
Starting with SCOTUS.They really should go all in and just discard all modern technology as well for the full 1850's experience.
Life was just so much better back then so I hear.
It demonstrates that there is no nefarious connection between this case and the overturning of Roe. SCOTUS had already decided that people can be prosecuted in US courts for what they do on reservations before they even heard Dobbs.What possible relevance does Denezpi have to my theory & Kavanaugh's opinions?
All the hypotheticals that get argued on this board would fill up an entire CT website!They would have just backfilled different legal reasoning for the same outcome to adapt to that circumstance.
Lots of them refer to themselves as “Indians”. And I don’t think they claim it as a word only they can use. At least my exes boss doesn’t.“…non-Indians against Indians in Indian country…….”
Seems pretty specific in wording. Is there such a thing as “triple jeopardy?” Federal, state and reservation?
I thought the term “Indian” was being phased out?
Well, it specifically says 'by non-indians against Indians'Supreme Court rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands
The opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states.www.axios.com
--
Fast on the heels of the Bruin (Roe) decision, the headline announcing this decision - above - immediately jumped-out at me, setting-off my 'ah-ha' detector!
It seems perhaps the Justices anticipate the theory where abortion, like gambling, might operate legally in the Native-American tribal areas that exist within states restricting abortion. The ruling above, would seem to possibly pro-actively preclude this jurisdictional loophole.
Is the above ruling & opinion merely coincidental? Am I seeing more here, than there is?
This appears to me to be purely a matter of criminal jurisdiction. For years the standard has been that Indians committing crimes against Indians can go to tribal court or in serious cases federal district court, state court has no jurisdiction, from glancing over the ruling that remains true. Crimes committed by non Indians against non Indians, even on Indian land are a state issue, at least that’s the way it was where I used to live. I lived in Mason county WA and frequently visited an Indian casino run by the Squaxins and the Skokomish reservation and the sheriffs department was always pulling white people out of the buildings when they were causing trouble. Even though those tribes have tribal police.Supreme Court rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands
The opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states.www.axios.com
--
Fast on the heels of the Bruin (Roe) decision, the headline announcing this decision - above - immediately jumped-out at me, setting-off my 'ah-ha' detector!
It seems perhaps the Justices anticipate the theory where abortion, like gambling, might operate legally in the Native-American tribal areas that exist within states restricting abortion. The ruling above, would seem to possibly pro-actively preclude this jurisdictional loophole.
Is the above ruling & opinion merely coincidental? Am I seeing more here, than there is?
It demonstrates that there is no nefarious connection between this case and the overturning of Roe. SCOTUS had already decided that people can be prosecuted in US courts for what they do on reservations before they even heard Dobbs.
I am sure you will continue to glom onto whatever their reasoning is to pretend that their rulings have legitimacy.All the hypotheticals that get argued on this board would fill up an entire CT website!
I had to look up glom. "Stuck to ' Thanks for teaching me something today.I am sure you will continue to glom onto whatever their reasoning is to pretend that their rulings have legitimacy.
I will do what is needed to get along in society, as people do, all the while working with people to fix society which I know will take decades at this point.I had to look up glom. "Stuck to ' Thanks for teaching me something today.
Let me return the favor, you don't know me, so please don't presume things you know nothing of.
As far as I know, I haven't glommed on to any reasoning but for you to pretend that the SCOTUS rulings have no legitimacy makes me laugh a bit.
I can just see you flouting the ruling to your detriment. All the way to jail.
Do you have a ****ing clue what this case is even about?Just another in a long string of federal decisions to abuse First Peoples of America.
It is appearing as if we have an activist court comprised of activist judges. Isn't that what Cons railed against for two decades?Supreme Court rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on tribal lands
The opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states.www.axios.com
--
Fast on the heels of the Bruin (Roe) decision, the headline announcing this decision - above - immediately jumped-out at me, setting-off my 'ah-ha' detector!
It seems perhaps the Justices anticipate the theory where abortion, like gambling, might operate legally in the Native-American tribal areas that exist within states restricting abortion. The ruling above, would seem to possibly pro-actively preclude this jurisdictional loophole.
Is the above ruling & opinion merely coincidental? Am I seeing more here, than there is?
Do you have a clue what you are upset over? this case involves the state of Oklahoma committing to prosecute a non native for child abuse...and you people are pissing yourselves without having the first ****ing clue why you are upset. You are all ****ing embarrassing yourselves.**** this Court.
Cool. Let's ignore this Court overriding the 5N's recent sovereignty win.Do you have a clue what you are upset over? this case involves the state of Oklahoma committing to prosecute a non native for child abuse...and you people are pissing yourselves without having the first ****ing clue why you are upset. You are all ****ing embarrassing yourselves.
Denezpri was equally about jurisdiction. But yes, this case is more-so about cleaning up the mess and chaos it created in McGirt by suddenly declaring almost all of Oklahoma to be Indian country.DENEZPRI specifically addresses double jeopardy.
CASTRO-HUERTA specific broadens states' prosecution on tribal lands, seemingly negating McGirt v. Oklahoma and it's precedences.