Yes, rulings like today continue to reduce what sovereignty they have.
A little more:
Also, if you really want to know how the conservatives on the bench feel about the reservations, notice they used "Indians" to refer to Native Americans instead of calling them Native Americans.
Last edited by MR25 on Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
as per the wording, I think “Indian” is the standard when referring to them from a legal standpoint (while Kavanaugh is a shitter, I don’t want to hang him for that)
I personally use “American Indian” based on this video
Fun fact, CGP Grey has never made a part 1 or any other parts to this series
Want the party that does what they say but everything is terrible or the party that says they will do all the things and end up doing nothing? Freedom of choice baby
The younger crowd that's in Congress will already be sucked into the congressional/political abyss by the time the "fossils" age out...
"Oh look at that, I can have a $20 million estate despite making like $110,000 a year...and all I have to do is pretend like I'm a little bit righteous on twitter or recite a poem written by a [whatever culture month it is]?!?!? Deal!"
Yes, rulings like today continue to reduce what sovereignty they have.
A little more:
Also, if you really want to know how the conservatives on the bench feel about the reservations, notice they used "Indians" to refer to Native Americans instead of calling them Native Americans.
I think this is statutory construction/convention.
It’s like SCOTUS is daring the country to reign them in. Bad decision after bad decision that affect large numbers of people with no regard to precedence, will of the people, or law it seems in some cases.
Nothing is going to happen. We’ll get some platitudes.
According to representatives of the county’s teacher association, teachers and staff members will be disallowed from wearing rainbow articles of clothing, including lanyards distributed by the district last year. Elementary-level teachers reported being discouraged from putting pictures of their same-sex spouse on their desk or talking about them to students.
Oh I don't doubt that's the next rally cry. But I don't think LGBTQ+ issues will have the same draw as abortion did.
Never mind that broad cultural acceptance of openness regarding LGBTQ+ issues is at a level I don't think abortion ever was (despite what I'm willing to bet is a fact that each of us here know at least one woman who has gotten an abortion). There was always a certain, if small, percentage of women who carried water for the anti-abortion movement. Voting against their own self-interest in favor of....... let's go with a 'different set of priorities'. I don't really think that exists with LGBTQ+ stuff, there aren't a lot of queer folks out there shouting "please restrict my rights!" Especially if you believe (as most everyone does nowadays) that we aren't talking about an opt-in lifestyle as was once thought but more of a "born this way" kind of thing.
meow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:29 pm
Want the party that does what they say but everything is terrible or the party that says they will do all the things and end up doing nothing? Freedom of choice baby
Yes.
Also no major fanfare of Boebart saying church should be directing state?
willeyeam wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:08 am
this is a good summation of my political beliefs in a nutshell. I have 0 interest in going to one, but the outrage just rubs me the wrong way. Just ignore it and let them be if it's not your thing. Who cares
mikey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:16 pm
The younger crowd that's in Congress will already be sucked into the congressional/political abyss by the time the "fossils" age out...
"Oh look at that, I can have a $20 million estate despite making like $110,000 a year...and all I have to do is pretend like I'm a little bit righteous on twitter or recite a poem written by a [whatever culture month it is]?!?!? Deal!"
I came to say this same thing to n! Yesterday but couldn't figure out how to word it. The young and endearing congressfolk have two choices - conform to the party or be irrelevant. Thus creates the next generation of fossils
willeyeam wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:33 am
It's like when Shyster focused on your "hack" term instead of everything you posted. Semantics are a good way to change the convo
We need a judge here to keep him in check. Where's dodint?
Shyster's name is on my SC of PA bar admissions certificate.
Faftorial wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:13 pm
I'm watching today's game (I'm in the 4th so DTMTS) and on two double plays now base runners veered off path to allow Cruz an open throw to first.
Those dynamics came into full view last week, when trainers told Broward teachers the nation’s founders did not desire a strict separation of state and church, downplayed the role the colonies and later the United States had in the history of slavery in America, and pushed a judicial theory, favored by legal conservatives like DeSantis, that requires people to interpret the Constitution as the framers intended it, not as a living, evolving document, according to three educators who attended the training.
A review of more than 200 pages of the state’s presentations show the founding fathers’ intent and the “misconceptions” about their thinking were a main theme of the training. One slide underscored that the “Founders expected religion to be promoted because they believed it to be essential to civic virtue.” Without virtue, another slide noted, citizens become “licentious” and become subject to tyranny.
Another slide highlights three U.S. Supreme Court cases to show when the “Founders’ original intent began to change.” That included the 1962 landmark case that found school-sponsored prayer violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which Judd said trainers viewed as unjust. At one point, the trainers equated it to the 1892 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
“Ending school prayer was compared to upholding segregation,” Judd said. In other words, he said, trainers called both those rulings unjust.
On slavery, the state said that two-thirds of the founding fathers were slave owners but emphasized that “even those that held slaves did not defend the institution.”
