[SCOTUS] thread we dreaded updates for because RIP RBG

1505153555659

Posts

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Killing Roe v Wade is a dog catching the car moment for the GOP.

    Turn it into a nationwide ban in 20 fucking 20 and you'll radicalize a ton of people against you who were middle of the road at best.

    Turn it into a state by state ban and watch college educated women flee your state en masse.

    Roe came into the picture just as women were really entering the work force and when less of the work force was educated.

    I don't think theres much silver lining to go around right now but I think there's a little to go around

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Tumin
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    "When we had it" is carrying an awful lot of weight there. Elections are not predetermined nor forces of nature. The 2014, 2016, and 2018 electorates bear fault for where we are today. Had they gone differently then things would be different.

    Worth mentioning nearly zero people thought Democrats were going to lose in 2016.

    And any of us that said otherwise were looked down upon as crazy and paranoid.

    reasonably so, given the context of that time

    doesn't really change the fact that putting all the blame on Ginsberg not retiring is ridiculous at best and misogynist at worst

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    iTunesIsEvilQanamil
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    edited September 19
    Chanus wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    "When we had it" is carrying an awful lot of weight there. Elections are not predetermined nor forces of nature. The 2014, 2016, and 2018 electorates bear fault for where we are today. Had they gone differently then things would be different.

    Worth mentioning nearly zero people thought Democrats were going to lose in 2016.

    And any of us that said otherwise were looked down upon as crazy and paranoid.

    reasonably so, given the context of that time

    doesn't really change the fact that putting all the blame on Ginsberg not retiring is ridiculous at best and misogynist at worst

    I put as much blame on her for not retiring at the better moment as I do Kennedy for retiring at the worst moment.

    Johnny Chopsocky on
    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
    Bullhead
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    A criticism of an old person being too fucking old =/= an attack on their illustrious career. RBG was a 75 year-old multiple cancer survivor when Obama was elected. She should have retired then. 75 is the mandatory retirement age for Canadian Supreme court justices, and it's gone pretty well for us, and it's insane that a nearly ninety-year-old was a judge.

    Supreme Court Justice often have a role in deciding how to bow out and be replaced by someone who potentially upholds their legacy.

    RBG did not retire, died at 87, and now a 6-3 court can overturn everything she ever achieved.

    BigJoeMCouscousJohnny ChopsockymrondeauSoggybiscuitSleepTetraNitroCubanespool32JragghenForarBlackDragon480OrcaSummaryJudgmentTynnanshrykeElvenshaeAlexandierKamarZonugalNobeardTryCatcherbrynhrtmnautono-wally, erotibot300DarkPrimusAistanJaysonFourMartini_PhilosopherKetarTorgaironthatassemblyguyHacksawStabbity StyleIncenjucarRozpainfulPleasancestopgapadejaanRhesus Positivejdarksundurandal4532AbsoluteZeroCojo MojoJazzChomp-Chomp
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 19
    I definitely remember a bunch of people during the Obama administration saying she should retired.

    Couscous on
    SleepshrykeTryCatcherHacksawpainfulPleasance
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    "When we had it" is carrying an awful lot of weight there. Elections are not predetermined nor forces of nature. The 2014, 2016, and 2018 electorates bear fault for where we are today. Had they gone differently then things would be different.

    Worth mentioning nearly zero people thought Democrats were going to lose in 2016.

    And any of us that said otherwise were looked down upon as crazy and paranoid.

    reasonably so, given the context of that time

    doesn't really change the fact that putting all the blame on Ginsberg not retiring is ridiculous at best and misogynist at worst

    I put as much blame on her for not retiring at the better moment as I do Kennedy for retiring at the worst moment.

    The problem with Kennedy was less the timing of his retirement, thought it was shitty, and more the pretty blatant trade: he voted with the administration on everything, and the administration gave his seat to his former clerk.

    FencingsaxN1tSt4lkermonikershrykeElvenshaeJragghenCommander ZoomJohnny ChopsockySo It GoesMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480emp123Stabbity StyleLord_AsmodeusTynnanMahnmutBullheadNetscapeCantidetynicJazz
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    She wanted to be replaced by the first woman president. Like it or not, that was her choice, she was very clear about it.

    Criticizing her, or the damage done, is very problematic.

    Fuck that and fuck her. I don't give a fuck about whether the personal dreams of one of the most powerful people in the country is fulfilled. Do the right fucking thing.

    uH3IcEi.png
    MadpoetNetscapepainfulPleasanceMosatiAbsoluteZero
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    painfulPleasance
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited September 19
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    She wanted to be replaced by the first woman president. Like it or not, that was her choice, she was very clear about it.

    Criticizing her, or the damage done, is very problematic.

    Fuck that and fuck her. I don't give a fuck about whether the personal dreams of one of the most powerful people in the country is fulfilled. Do the right fucking thing.

    While I don’t have that same kind of visceral reaction, it does feel like yet another example of "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

    I mean it's possible that McConnell would have been a prick, but I feel in 2014, holding it off for two or three years might have been a hard ask, and they weren't that emboldened yet.

    It's only been recently that Trump has shown there's literally no depth that they'll get punished for. They used to be concerned about a backlash over a lack of integrity. Now, not so much. Now the only thing that can make a difference is lack of competence, and not even that is guaranteed.

    MorganV on
    Commander ZoomSpoit
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    Take your “fuck RBG” takes somewhere else.

    FencingsaxToxPolaritieMrVyngaardTomantaMartini_PhilosopherCapt HowdyAnalogWarlordExtreaminatusShadowfireOremLKKoopahTroopahFiendishrabbitHappylilElfMercadeMr RayTynnanoverride367VishNubtynicQanamil
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    A lot of us, myself included, comfortably assumed that things would only continue to get better.
    Instead, we got Hunter S. Thompson's high water mark. :(

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    OrcaNobeardElvenshaeArbitraryDescriptorzagdrobTicaldfjamthatassemblyguyBlackDragon480Extreaminatusemp123BurnageNetscapeDoodmann
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    She wanted to be replaced by the first woman president. Like it or not, that was her choice, she was very clear about it.

    Criticizing her, or the damage done, is very problematic.

    She was one of 9 people get to decide for the rest of their lives the fate of hundreds of millions. Criticizing her and the damage done is fair and valid.

    A woman wanting to be replaced by a woman is what the democratic party and liberalism in general is about. Complaining about that, and that maybe identity issues cause collateral damage to others opens up a can of worms that should not be opened. Because where that leads calls out everything we care about.
    Definitely not, this is the kind of purely symbolic conception of identity that is opposed to actual change. It's not a victory when the insurance executives, camp guards, and drone pilots are women. There's nothing wrong with her hoping that she would be replaced by a woman, but what really matters is material effects, and she blew it. It's not necessarily accurate to say it's "her fault" because other people have agency, but you can't demand people not criticize a bad decision because it involved identity politics.

    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    shrykeBloodsheedOrcaTryCatcherOmnomnomPancakeBigJoeMElvenshaeSleepAistanSmrtnikJaysonFourMonwynkimeNetscapepainfulPleasancetynicstopgap
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    Thanks for not swallowing your pride and retiring for the black president, Ruth.

    Are you claiming that RBG didn't retire because she was racist?

    I doubt it but there's apparently a lot of people who are super mad she didn't retire in 2014 because then clearly Obama could have filled her seat with an equally progressive pick despite McConnel controlling the senate and I hope you'll excuse me while I laugh uproariously at that utterly asinine idea for the following five straight minutes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_elections

    People were wanting her to retire in 2014 because the Dems had the majority. McConnell didn't get the senate til January 2015.

    She absolutely should have and the fact that she didn't take that chance when we had it is going to be the black stain that overshadows everything else amazing about her incredible life and career.

    "When we had it" is carrying an awful lot of weight there. Elections are not predetermined nor forces of nature. The 2014, 2016, and 2018 electorates bear fault for where we are today. Had they gone differently then things would be different.

    Worth mentioning nearly zero people thought Democrats were going to lose in 2016.

    It is also worth remembering that now 1/3rd of the Court will have been appointed without a popular mandate.

    SleepOrcashrykeFencingsaxJragghenBrodyTetraNitroCubanethatassemblyguyBlackDragon480OremLKAimMr RayNobeardbrynhrtmnNetscapepainfulPleasanceElvenshaeDoodmann
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    More than. W Bush appointed at least one his first term, right?

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    More than. W Bush appointed at least one his first term, right?

    That's what I thought too, but both Bush appointments were in his second term.

    moniker
  • AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    GWB can't have a second term without a first term. His scotus picks are still suspect.

    steam_sig.png
    NobeardBullhead
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    A criticism of an old person being too fucking old =/= an attack on their illustrious career. RBG was a 75 year-old multiple cancer survivor when Obama was elected. She should have retired then. 75 is the mandatory retirement age for Canadian Supreme court justices, and it's gone pretty well for us, and it's insane that a nearly ninety-year-old was a judge.

    Supreme Court Justice often have a role in deciding how to bow out and be replaced by someone who potentially upholds their legacy.

    RBG did not retire, died at 87, and now a 6-3 court can overturn everything she ever achieved.

    You're right, she fucked up. She trusted us.

    MorganVOremLKTetraNitroCubaneAnalogWarlordToxbrynhrtmnElJeffeNetscape
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    A criticism of an old person being too fucking old =/= an attack on their illustrious career. RBG was a 75 year-old multiple cancer survivor when Obama was elected. She should have retired then. 75 is the mandatory retirement age for Canadian Supreme court justices, and it's gone pretty well for us, and it's insane that a nearly ninety-year-old was a judge.

    Supreme Court Justice often have a role in deciding how to bow out and be replaced by someone who potentially upholds their legacy.

    RBG did not retire, died at 87, and now a 6-3 court can overturn everything she ever achieved.

    You're right, she fucked up. She trusted us.

    We voted for Hillary. I can't change the way the electoral college works.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    FencingsaxCommander Zoomoverride367ShadowfireNobeardKoopahTroopah38thDoeCantideDacAbsoluteZero
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    A criticism of an old person being too fucking old =/= an attack on their illustrious career. RBG was a 75 year-old multiple cancer survivor when Obama was elected. She should have retired then. 75 is the mandatory retirement age for Canadian Supreme court justices, and it's gone pretty well for us, and it's insane that a nearly ninety-year-old was a judge.

    Supreme Court Justice often have a role in deciding how to bow out and be replaced by someone who potentially upholds their legacy.

    RBG did not retire, died at 87, and now a 6-3 court can overturn everything she ever achieved.

    You're right, she fucked up. She trusted us.

    We voted for Hillary. I can't change the way the electoral college works.

    yup, that curséd year when the EC failed to do the very thing we'd always been taught it existed for, and instead stood revealed as the corrupt bargain with slavers it always truly was.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    OrcaBigJoeMbrynhrtmnN1tSt4lkerkimeBullheadpainfulPleasanceCantideeMoanderStabbity StyleElvenshaeAbsoluteZeroLilnoobsJazz
  • FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.

    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.

    Reinterpretation of the law is equivalent to writing the law.

    PolaritieTynnanpainfulPleasanceGnizmo
  • I needed a gnome to post.I needed a gnome to post. boom Registered User regular
    I mean, enforcement is functionally endorsement. I'm not gonna say "burn her at the stake" but I think there's value in contextualizing the ways someone succeeded at moving progress forward alongside the ways they failed and may even have contributed to regression in some areas. The law is racist. To be okay with enforcing those laws, you have to either be willing to compromise yourself when those things come up, or to be someone who does not believe those laws are racist.

    liEt3nH.png
    Hacksaw
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.

    Reinterpretation of the law is equivalent to writing the law.

    The job of the Supreme Court is interpreting the law.

    Reinterpretation of the law is how we got Citizens United.

  • Mr RayMr Ray Sarcasm sphereRegistered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.

    That's how a supreme court justice is supposed to work but it turns out there's a lot of wiggle room there, otherwise it wouldn't matter if the supreme court were 9 democrats or 9 republicans.
    RedTide wrote: »
    Killing Roe v Wade is a dog catching the car moment for the GOP.

    Turn it into a nationwide ban in 20 fucking 20 and you'll radicalize a ton of people against you who were middle of the road at best.

    Turn it into a state by state ban and watch college educated women flee your state en masse.

    Roe came into the picture just as women were really entering the work force and when less of the work force was educated.

    I don't think theres much silver lining to go around right now but I think there's a little to go around

    That's not a problem if those people don't vote for you in the first place.

    Space.
    SmrtnikpainfulPleasance
  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    edited September 20
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!
    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.
    Do they though? To quote from Stevens dissent
    Since the outset of this litigation it has been common ground that if the Tribe’s properties are “Indian Country,” the City has no jurisdiction to tax them without express congressional consent. For the reasons set forth at length in the opinions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals, it is abundantly clear that all of the land owned by the Tribe within the boundaries of its reservation qualifies as Indian country. Without questioning the accuracy of that conclusion, the Court today nevertheless decides that the fact that most of the reservation has been occupied and governed by non-Indians for a long period of time precludes the Tribe “from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.” This is a novel holding, and in my judgment even more unwise than the Court’s holding in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226 (1985), that the Tribe may recover damages for the alleged illegal conveyance of its lands that occurred in 1795. In that case, I argued that the “remedy for the ancient wrong established at trial should be provided by Congress, not by judges seeking to rewrite history at this late date,” id., at 270 (opinion dissenting in part). In the present case, the Tribe is not attempting to collect damages or eject landowners as a remedy for a wrong that occurred centuries ago; rather, it is invoking an ancient immunity against a city’s present-day attempts to tax its reservation lands.

    Without the benefit of relevant briefing from the parties, the Court has ventured into legal territory that belongs to Congress. Its decision today is at war with at least two bedrock principles of Indian law. First, only Congress has the power to diminish or disestablish a tribe’s reservation. Second, as a core incident of tribal sovereignty, a tribe enjoys immunity from state and local taxation of its reservation lands, until that immunity is explicitly revoked by Congress. Far from revoking this immunity, Congress has specifically reconfirmed it with respect to the reservation lands of the New York Indians.[Footnote 4] Ignoring these principles, the Court has done what only Congress may do—it has effectively proclaimed a diminishment of the Tribe’s reservation and an abrogation of its elemental right to tax immunity. Under our precedents, whether it is wise policy to honor the Tribe’s tax immunity is a question for Congress, not this Court, to decide.

    It seems perverse to hold that the reliance interests of non-Indian New Yorkers that are predicated on almost two centuries of inaction by the Tribe do not foreclose the Tribe’s enforcement of judicially created damages remedies for ancient wrongs, but do somehow mandate a forfeiture of a tribal immunity that has been consistently and uniformly protected throughout our history. In this case, the Tribe reacquired reservation land in a peaceful and lawful manner that fully respected the interests of innocent landowners—it purchased the land on the open market. To now deny the Tribe its right to tax immunity—at once the most fundamental of tribal rights and the least disruptive to other sovereigns—is not only inequitable, but also irreconcilable with the principle that only Congress may abrogate or extinguish tribal sovereignty. I would not decide this case on the basis of speculation about what may happen in future litigation over other regulatory issues. For the answer to the question whether the City may require the Tribe to pay taxes on its own property within its own reservation is pellucidly clear. Under settled law, it may not.
    To partially quote from the much longer opinion
    “The substantive questions whether the plaintiff has any right or the defendant any duty, and if so what it is, are very different questions from the remedial questions whether this remedy or that is preferred, and what the measure of the remedy is.” D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §1.2, p. 3 (1973); see also Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F. 2d 1455, 1467 (CA10 1987) (“The distinction between a claim or substantive right and a remedy is fundamental.”). “Standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice” led the District Court, in the litigation revived after Oneida II, see supra, at 9–10, to reject OIN’s plea for ejectment of 20,000 private landowners. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 199 F. R. D., at 90 (internal quotation marks omitted); ibid. (“[T]here is a sharp distinction between the existence of a federal common law right to Indian homelands and how to vindicate that right … .”). In this action, OIN seeks declaratory and injunctive relief recognizing its present and future sovereign immunity from local taxation on parcels of land the Tribe purchased in the open market, properties that had been subject to state and local taxation for generations. We now reject the unification theory of OIN and the United States and hold that “standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice” preclude the Tribe from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.

    The wrongs of which OIN complains in this action occurred during the early years of the Republic. For the past two centuries, New York and its county and municipal units have continuously governed the territory. The Oneidas did not seek to regain possession of their aboriginal lands by court decree until the 1970’s. And not until the 1990’s did OIN acquire the properties in question and assert its unification theory to ground its demand for exemption of the parcels from local taxation. 337 F. 3d, at 144. This long lapse of time, during which the Oneidas did not seek to revive their sovereign control through equitable relief in court, and the attendant dramatic changes in the character of the properties, preclude OIN from gaining the disruptive remedy it now seeks.

    In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the “impossibility” doctrine had no application because OIN acquired the land in the open market and does not seek to uproot current property owners. But the unilateral reestablishment of present and future Indian sovereign control, even over land purchased at the market price, would have disruptive practical consequences similar to those that led this Court in Yankton Sioux to initiate the impossibility doctrine. The city of Sherrill and Oneida County are today overwhelmingly populated by non-Indians. A checkerboard of alternating state and tribal jurisdiction in New York State—created unilaterally at OIN’s behest—would “seriously burden the administration of state and local governments” and would adversely affect landowners neighboring the tribal patches. Hagen, 510 U. S., at 421 (quoting Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U. S. 463, 471–472, n. 12 (1984)). If OIN may unilaterally reassert sovereign control and remove these parcels from the local tax rolls, little would prevent the Tribe from initiating a new generation of litigation to free the parcels from local zoning or other regulatory controls that protect all landowners in the area. See Felix, 145 U. S., at 335 (“decree prayed for in this case, if granted, would offer a distinct encouragement to … similar claims”); cf. Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 492 U. S. 408, 433–437 (1989) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (discussing tribal land-use controls); post, at 5, n. 6 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting that “the balance of interests” supports continued state zoning jurisdiction).
    The argument is just fancy language for "we don't want to". Laws have nothing to do with it, it's simply the US government declaring the fair thing to do is ignoring inconveniences to it.

    I am not at all a lawyer so feel free to read it yourself

    Coinage on
    t1iylq0d7o1p.png
    DisruptedCapitalist
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Mr Ray wrote: »
    Coinage wrote: »
    RBG did write a very bad opinion for Indian land rights, so maybe she was a little racist? I never met her!

    No. That's just how property law works. A supreme justice interpretes the law, they don't write it.

    That's how a supreme court justice is supposed to work but it turns out there's a lot of wiggle room there, otherwise it wouldn't matter if the supreme court were 9 democrats or 9 republicans.
    RedTide wrote: »
    Killing Roe v Wade is a dog catching the car moment for the GOP.

    Turn it into a nationwide ban in 20 fucking 20 and you'll radicalize a ton of people against you who were middle of the road at best.

    Turn it into a state by state ban and watch college educated women flee your state en masse.

    Roe came into the picture just as women were really entering the work force and when less of the work force was educated.

    I don't think theres much silver lining to go around right now but I think there's a little to go around

    That's not a problem if those people don't vote for you in the first place.

    It is when your state's economy craters because employers don't want to locate in the theocratic hellstate where the only people left are the ones who can't leave.

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    FencingsaxJaysonFourZonugal
  • Fleur de AlysFleur de Alys Biohacker Registered User regular
    Three R Senators are now positive for COVID. Get one more and drag it out just a bit, and this whole thing gets derailed.

    Miss Rona being the 11th hour hero is adequately absurd for 2020.

    Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
    spool32SmrtnikBullheadBrodyMartini_PhilosopherMillDark Raven XElvenshaeJazz
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    StarZapper on
    OrcaTetraNitroCubaneNetscapeProhassSleepKamarshrykeAbsoluteZerobrynhrtmnBlackDragon480jdarksunMorganVBrodyStabbity Styleoverride367AistanMartini_PhilosopherkimeZonugalFencingsaxCantideHefflingIncenjucarHacksawShadowfireemp123tynicNobeardJazz
  • BigPointyTeethBigPointyTeeth run away! run away! MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    I'm starting to think RBG was a wizard, and this is her death curse for not following her final wishes.

    CaptainPeacockBrodyFleur de AlysTicaldfjamFencingsax
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    I'm starting to think RBG was a wizard, and this is her death curse for not following her final wishes.

    I'll believe that if and only if we don't get a hard right member in there and Biden wins the presidency.

    Otherwise we can look forward to her legacy being bupkis.

    NetscapeSleepjdarksunJaysonFourBullheadStabbity StyleCommander ZoomMartini_PhilosopherCantide
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    Yep 100%. He will definitely do this and republican senators are all spineless and will follow him. He gives zero shits how it looks and will wear the outrage as a badge of honour

    Nobeard
  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know Texas booniesRegistered User regular
    Prohass wrote: »
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    Yep 100%. He will definitely do this and republican senators are all spineless and will follow him. He gives zero shits how it looks and will wear the outrage as a badge of honour

    I've said it before but a lame duck SCOTUS confirmation for a President and Senate majority that will not be present in January is actually one of the easiest excuses in the world for Dems to do everything we've been here hoping they would.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
    monikershrykeJragghenMorganVJaysonFourArdolzagdrobStabbity StyleFleur de AlysFencingsaxMillHefflingMvrckDoctorArchemp123ElvenshaeSpoitNobeardJazz
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    If there's anyone that deserves the icy touch of Rona, it's Mitch McConnell.

    Steam: catseye543
    PSN: ShogunGunshow
    Origin: ShogunGunshow
    BigJoeMForarJaysonFourBullheadCommander ZoomAistanMartini_PhilosopherTicaldfjamMillSleepIncenjucarMunkus BeaverHacksawN1tSt4lkerGONG-00DoctorArchElvenshaeVishNubtynicNobeardJazz
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Ilpala wrote: »
    Prohass wrote: »
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    Yep 100%. He will definitely do this and republican senators are all spineless and will follow him. He gives zero shits how it looks and will wear the outrage as a badge of honour

    I've said it before but a lame duck SCOTUS confirmation for a President and Senate majority that will not be present in January is actually one of the easiest excuses in the world for Dems to do everything we've been here hoping they would.

    Aye. It's almost better if they throw all forbearance in the dumpster and just ram it through in the lame-duck after losing the election hard. Because it's behaviour like that that seems to be driving actual congresspeople to the edge where they are willing to do things that are big and bold and necessary but that institutionalists are squeamish about.

  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 3
    Edit: sorry wrong thread

    Jealous Deva on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    They accepted a case where Roberts gets to gut Section 2 of the VRA yesterday.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikershrykeemp123Spoit
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    They accepted a case where Roberts gets to gut Section 2 of the VRA yesterday.

    Going to need to pass the John Lewis Memorial Voting Rights Act and dare Roberts to overturn it. If he does, I think support will build for court packing.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Phoenix-DjdarksunFencingsaxN1tSt4lkerElvenshae
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    They accepted a case where Roberts gets to gut Section 2 of the VRA yesterday.

    Going to need to pass the John Lewis Memorial Voting Rights Act and dare Roberts to overturn it. If he does, I think support will build for court packing.

    Why wait? As soon as Congress and the presidency are in hand, pack that fucker like a clown car. We have the GWB decision, Citizens United, and likely two stolen supreme court justices.

    If the democrats pull out a win from an election that is already being fucked with, pri 1 needs to be un-fucking the system.

    Phoenix-DBigJoeMKetBraElvenshaeAistanSpoitNobeardJazz
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Orca wrote: »
    They accepted a case where Roberts gets to gut Section 2 of the VRA yesterday.

    Going to need to pass the John Lewis Memorial Voting Rights Act and dare Roberts to overturn it. If he does, I think support will build for court packing.

    Why wait? As soon as Congress and the presidency are in hand, pack that fucker like a clown car. We have the GWB decision, Citizens United, and likely two stolen supreme court justices.

    If the democrats pull out a win from an election that is already being fucked with, pri 1 needs to be un-fucking the system.

    The best way to do that would be to quickly pass an extensive federal voting rights program which guarantees people all the rights they think they already have, and dare the court to overturn it. Overturning a law of that nature would quickly justify court packing, because the law can be quite simple and guarantee a very basic set of rights and still force the court to act to declare it unconstitutional.

    I feel we'll get more and better results by forcing the court into a recent and obviously terrible decision. I guess it depends whether or not they are stupid enough to destroy Obamacare and ban abortion. My bet is that they just weaken local regulations etc, death by a thousand cuts style. If they aren't, then clearly wed already have the recent and obviously terrible decision.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Commander Zoom
  • asurasur Registered User regular
    StarZapper wrote: »
    That might push the vote back past the election, but there's no way in hell Mitch is going let the lame duck session pass without voting on her.

    This makes the argument to expand the court much more palatable. It also would mean the new justice wouldn't rule on ACA though a tie would repeal the law.

Sign In or Register to comment.