• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS rules Oklahoma can prosecute non-Natives on tribal lands

Chomsky said:
If true, I would hope you don't extend your logic to the use of other cultures' potentially derogatory terms!
Click to expand...
It’s not logic. It’s straight from the horses mouth, as it were.

His, and others’, position is that they were “Indians” their whole lives. Then somebody got sensitive and demanded it stop. They don’t agree. You’ll notice that things like art shows ( he’s a jeweler) are often the Indian Art Festival or some such. Our local casino just recently changed from “Indian gaming” to “tribal gaming”, so it may be in flux as to acceptability.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, the ruling in this case is fairly specific. However, please take a close look at the opinion excerpts I quoted as part of my OP. The Justices clearly are opining broader application than this specific instance.



Yeah, WTH is with that? That jumped-out at me too, even though I didn't mention it in my OP.

Kavanaugh is such a dick. IMNSHO, he simply does not have the demeanor becoming of a SCOTUS Justice, much less that of a judge at all. Just as with his lack of containment of his emotions at his confirmation hearings, he seems to have shown a lack of restraint, or a at the least a lack of forethought, with his disingenuous characterization here.

With the seemingly flippant use of 'Indian', I can't help but wonder how much thought this could this guy have put into his legal analysis?
Click to expand...
Just like Latino/Hispanic/Chicano, many labels are floating around, and Indian/Native Americans use both of theirs interchangeably. Living in a minority majority state with about 2 dozen Indian nations, I know whereof I speak. Personally, until the NAACP changes their letterhead to NAAPOC, I'm not going to worry too greatly over keeping my labels up to PC snuff.

As to justice in Indian Country (this is an official Federal term), it is a cluster F*. Generally, tribes have jurisdiction over minor offenses, with the Feds having jurisdiction over "major" offenses. In practice, this means major crimes go the the US Attorney, frequently to die of neglect. In minor crimes, it seems that jurisdiction over non-native criminals varies from tribe to tribe, perhaps based on their individual treaty with Uncle Sam. Hard to see why they shouldn't have jurisdiction where both the crime scene and the victim are Native. As to traffic offenses, if they occur on a roadway dedicated to the state (public highway) it is Federal, or tribal, maybe even state in places. Again confursing.
 
tacomancer said:
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.
Click to expand...
While following the laws of the land (which includes this SCOTUS ruling).

Does that work include, posing a hypothetical and arguing that stance with people who haven't taken that stance?

Because you did, and here we are.
 
Cope said:
While following the laws of the land (which includes this SCOTUS ruling).

Does that work include, posing a hypothetical and arguing that stance with people who haven't taken that stance?

Because you did, and here we are.
Click to expand...
I am just cutting through the bullshit.
 
This decision has no connection to the recent decision on abortion. It is an attempt by the court to rule on some loopholes in criminal prosecutions created by a previous decision. The case which carried this decision to the court today was about a man (not an Indian) who was living on a reservation and who was accused of criminally neglecting his child (who is part Indian), and then whether the state of Oklahoma had any means to prosecute the man for his crime inside a reservation.

It is a very complicated matter, with a complicated history, in which our nation has a very long history of convoluted treatment of Indians and their rights.
 
Chomsky said:
www.axios.com

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 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?
Click to expand...
One problem justice kavanaugh, we stole their land from them, it was theirs long before it was 'our's. I also see this decision as a way to not prosecute white folks who commit crimes in indian lands.
 
Cope said:
Pretty much how it's always been.
Click to expand...
Yup, this SCOTUS is just more obvious about it, but at the end of the day, people were naive to ever believe in the idea of a nonpolitical court.
 
Chomsky said:
www.axios.com

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 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?
Click to expand...
This is clearly paving the way for Oklahoma to go after Tribal lands offering abortions because states cannot or at least did not, have any authority over native land. This court is so ****ed up and just making shit up for their rulings regardless of precedent on anything.

They are making ruling solely on what they want then just fashion excuses for their rulings after the fact.
 
reinaert said:
Cool. Let's ignore this Court overriding the 5N's recent sovereignty win.
Click to expand...
That non natives be tried for criminal offenses-in this case the abuse of a child? As opposed to having 18,000 cases ignored by the tribal councils?

You bet.
 
VanceMack said:
That non natives be tried for criminal offenses-in this case the abuse of a child? As opposed to having 18,000 cases ignored by the tribal councils?

You bet.
Click to expand...
Man, this Court ****ed with hard won Tribal sovereignty. Again. **** this Court.
 
reinaert said:
Man, this Court ****ed with hard won Tribal sovereignty. Again. **** this Court.
Click to expand...
You 'people' are so lost in your ridiculous hatred. Its sad....
 
VanceMack said:
You 'people' are so lost in your ridiculous hatred. Its sad....
Click to expand...
And a woosh away you go, either willfully missing that this Court ****ed with Tribal sovereignty, or, perhaps worse, blind to the obvious thing that I keep telling you irks me.
 
reinaert said:
And a woosh away you go, either willfully missing that this Court ****ed with Tribal sovereignty, or, perhaps worse, blind to the obvious thing that I keep telling you irks me.
Click to expand...
Since the court ruled in 2020 that a good deal of Eastern Oklahoma, including the much of the city of Tulsa is on Indian land, it makes sense that there would be some jurisdictional confusion that needs to be cleared up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom