The ruling is great news for the Indian Nations, but I'm curious what happens to the convicted child molester. Does he just get to walk free now, until the feds get around to charging him with the crimes? I think it was a good ruling, but it feels a bit conflicted if this guy gets to just cheat justice because of it.
The ruling is great news for the Indian Nations, but I'm curious what happens to the convicted child molester. Does he just get to walk free now, until the feds get around to charging him with the crimes? I think it was a good ruling, but it feels a bit conflicted if this guy gets to just cheat justice because of it.
It is common for major rights expanding cases to be in the case of total jackasses.
In this case he was tried illegally. He will most likely be not released if prosecutors were smart and prepped for this chance ahead of time.
The ruling is great news for the Indian Nations, but I'm curious what happens to the convicted child molester. Does he just get to walk free now, until the feds get around to charging him with the crimes? I think it was a good ruling, but it feels a bit conflicted if this guy gets to just cheat justice because of it.
It is common for major rights expanding cases to be in the case of total jackasses.
In this case he was tried illegally. He will most likely be not released if prosecutors were smart and prepped for this chance ahead of time.
So.... it mostly depends on if they were career prosecutors or Trump appointees, right?
I'd have to look in this particular case, but Gorsuch notes in his opinion that federal penalties are usually harsher so it's an interesting decision to even appeal on those grounds.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Oh yeah, I wrote about this in the Brooklynn Nine-Nine thread, of all places. Basically, no one is ever going to fight all the way to the supreme court over an unfair parking ticket. The only people who will get that far are those who have a lot on the line. That's generally going to be people accused of pretty bad shit.
I mean in all honesty it shouldn't matter what the person is accused of if the law is broken. We don't have a caveat "yeah but this person was a shit."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm reminded of Twain's essay on how to deal with the (remaining) natives, which said (essentially) "we've been absolute shit to these people, for so long and so hard, that they will never (for good reason) trust us or be willing to live with us; so we should all accept and admit, to ourselves and everyone, that we are utter bastards and do what utter bastards do, which is finish the job of exterminating them (because it's them or us)."
Which was, uh, certainly a take.
Please note, I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM:
One of the general rules of conquest is that the only ways to finally resolve a conflict with a conquered people is to either breed them out or wipe them out.
This is partly because conquering populations basically cannot ever seem to stop themselves from committing atrocities. Conquering populations are historically resistant as hell to any sort of reparations or restoration of land.
It's part of why you don't go around conquering people! You can only ever be more of a monster as you go.
Or you theoretically give them full rights, but nobody really tries that. Except kinda the Persians.
Wouldn't most conquered peoples consider that assimilation and therefore cultural erasure?
Depends extremely on how things went down. The US tribe situation? Oh hell yes. Ancient conquests where it was sometimes just "OK now we pay grain tax to y" eeeh maybe not so much.
I doubt we're going to see much progress on aboriginal rights when we still can't get them elected to high positions in the country that was stolen from them.
I'll be surprised if I live long enough to see an SCJ from any tribal cultural background.
I'd have to look in this particular case, but Gorsuch notes in his opinion that federal penalties are usually harsher so it's an interesting decision to even appeal on those grounds.
That Oklahoma sentence is incredibly long for a state sentence I'd say
So, seeing a couple of twitter posts about what Gorusch wrote regarding the Oklahoma decision, and it's really on point.
What was the dissenting opinion? "The government doesn't have to hold to it's agreement, because reasons."?
"The founders clearly didn't intend to honor any agreements with them whatsoever!", presumably.
Given Trump's favorite historical president is known as the guy who took a you-and-what-army approach to court decisions involving aboriginal populations...
Oh yeah, I wrote about this in the Brooklynn Nine-Nine thread, of all places. Basically, no one is ever going to fight all the way to the supreme court over an unfair parking ticket. The only people who will get that far are those who have a lot on the line. That's generally going to be people accused of pretty bad shit.
Not really. A lot of famous cases can be about what is relatively minor shit because they are deliberately chosen by other people in order to push the idea to the Supreme Court.
That de facto disestablishment of the reservation amounts to de jure disestablishment of the reservation.
A lot of that, with a little "and here are some acts of Congress that one could squint at and infer that Congress thought they disestablished it," plus a smattering of "and even the tribes suspected that the US government would renege on those promises, so they didn't treat it as a reservation for most of the 20th century."
It's kind of comical that conservative justices are more than happy to read between the lines and talk about intent, and historical behavior when weighing out how to rule on this issue, but when Congress tries to do its job to regulate the executive, and has been so thoroughly blocked by the Trump administration and the GOP in Congress that it's literally breaking the constitutional system..suddenly it's "ah hell no! Context, history, and all that shit doesn't matter.
Edit: It also becomes ever more obvious that Thomas is never going to vote with the liberals again, even on something as obvious as shutting down the Trump admin's arguments that the president is totally above the law. He's clearly not willing to risk his sweet ride on the right wing charity/welfare circuit.
I feel like SCOTUS cases are often situations where the crime itself is 100% not in question, which is why it makes a good procedural or legislative argument.
Or you theoretically give them full rights, but nobody really tries that. Except kinda the Persians.
Wouldn't most conquered peoples consider that assimilation and therefore cultural erasure?
Case by case basis, Cyrus I of Persia is the only non Jew/Hebrew labeled as a messiah in the Bible because after conquering Babylon he allowed those Jews that wanted to return to Israel/Judah after the Exile to do so, along with giving them seed, provisions, and financed the building of the 2nd Temple.
Granted quite a few chose to stay in Mesopotamia, because they had done rather well for themselves in the generation since the sacking of Jerusalem.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
This is a very important day for SCOTUSblog, less because it is the last day of the term and more because it is the last day for our outgoing editor, Edith Roberts.
Edith’s retirement is a huge loss; we will miss her terribly. For four years, she has been an extraordinary editor. That job involves not just the technical review of every single piece we publish but also the organization and management of the publication schedule and thousands of critical details related to the blog’s operation.
Posts
It is common for major rights expanding cases to be in the case of total jackasses.
In this case he was tried illegally. He will most likely be not released if prosecutors were smart and prepped for this chance ahead of time.
So.... it mostly depends on if they were career prosecutors or Trump appointees, right?
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Please note, I AM NOT ENDORSING THIS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM:
One of the general rules of conquest is that the only ways to finally resolve a conflict with a conquered people is to either breed them out or wipe them out.
This is partly because conquering populations basically cannot ever seem to stop themselves from committing atrocities. Conquering populations are historically resistant as hell to any sort of reparations or restoration of land.
It's part of why you don't go around conquering people! You can only ever be more of a monster as you go.
Colonialism is freaking horrible.
Wouldn't most conquered peoples consider that assimilation and therefore cultural erasure?
Depends extremely on how things went down. The US tribe situation? Oh hell yes. Ancient conquests where it was sometimes just "OK now we pay grain tax to y" eeeh maybe not so much.
I'll be surprised if I live long enough to see an SCJ from any tribal cultural background.
That Oklahoma sentence is incredibly long for a state sentence I'd say
Given Trump's favorite historical president is known as the guy who took a you-and-what-army approach to court decisions involving aboriginal populations...
Not really. A lot of famous cases can be about what is relatively minor shit because they are deliberately chosen by other people in order to push the idea to the Supreme Court.
It's kind of comical that conservative justices are more than happy to read between the lines and talk about intent, and historical behavior when weighing out how to rule on this issue, but when Congress tries to do its job to regulate the executive, and has been so thoroughly blocked by the Trump administration and the GOP in Congress that it's literally breaking the constitutional system..suddenly it's "ah hell no! Context, history, and all that shit doesn't matter.
Edit: It also becomes ever more obvious that Thomas is never going to vote with the liberals again, even on something as obvious as shutting down the Trump admin's arguments that the president is totally above the law. He's clearly not willing to risk his sweet ride on the right wing charity/welfare circuit.
Mongols too! "Submit and pay the Great Khan his tribute and all will be well. Defy him and things will go badly."
They just retried him and convicted him without his confession they had him dead to rights.
Nah, they're just dunking on people who have confused them with the actual SCOTUS.
Case by case basis, Cyrus I of Persia is the only non Jew/Hebrew labeled as a messiah in the Bible because after conquering Babylon he allowed those Jews that wanted to return to Israel/Judah after the Exile to do so, along with giving them seed, provisions, and financed the building of the 2nd Temple.
Granted quite a few chose to stay in Mesopotamia, because they had done rather well for themselves in the generation since the sacking of Jerusalem.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
This one tho
Yes, they do not. Hilarity then ensues.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/hail-and-farewell-2/
Justice Ginsburg in the hospital with a fear of an infection. 2020 please please no more.
pleasepaypreacher.net
On the other hand, Roberts fell and hit his head enough to require hospitalization and it wasn't even mentioned til a month later.
How does that make a difference?
Because Ginsburg dying changes the composition of the court, Roberts does to an extent but he's still listed as a conservative.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Congress seats three weeks before the President does.
Yes but SCOTUS shouldn't care about that and they didn't even announce Robert's injury.
Can you imagine a Republican Senate pushing a new SCOTUS through in 3 weeks before a President Biden replaces Trump? People would be apoplectic.
Wouldn't matter at all. Like the GOP would get it done and the NYT would run an article "Democrats don't like the process they should vote."
pleasepaypreacher.net
For a couple weeks.
This is likely down to the individual Justice's preference for how that information is disclosed.