If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Good: House GOP to vote on Violence Against Women Act next week. Facepalm: They stripped out coverage for lesbians and Native Americans - AGAIN   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 257
    More: Asinine, House GOP, Violence Against Women Act, GOP, LGBT, reauthorization, United States House Committee on Rules, House Majority Leader, domestic violence  
•       •       •

3449 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2013 at 4:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 04:00:01 PM  

BMulligan: nmemkha: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.

He finds the idea of a white man being tried before an all-Indian jury horrifying, but trying an Indian before an all-white jury is just huonky dory.


I feel bad for that, but I couldn't resist.
 
2013-02-23 06:23:49 PM  

BMulligan: nmemkha: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.

He finds the idea of a white man being tried before an all-Indian jury horrifying, but trying an Indian before an all-white jury is just hunky dory.


I actually started by pointing out that it is approximately the same problem as excluding members of the defendant's race from a criminal jury--much of the reasoning in something like Batson applies just as well to an entire racially-exclusionary court system. So, yeah, "blacks in the 60s" would've agreed with me, you disingenuous farks. It isn't a great idea to systematically and deliberately exclude the defendant's race from the judicial process.

Horrifying? More like unfair and unnecessary. Native Americans often face non-Native judges and juries, and I wouldn't say that's "just hunky dory" either. However, it is not mandatory, it is not because Native Americans are systematically excluded from local jury rolls and governmental positions and the poliical process and residence in the area and so on. (If it were, the defendant would have one hell of a case on appeal.)  It is essentially a statistical problem faced by any sufficiently small minority even with equal treatment, rather than a matter of ongoing race-based exclusion from the system. And more to the point of this discussion (if we can call attempts to put words in my mouth a "discussion"), it can't be solved by simply choosing not to put a stupid provision in a current bill.
 
2013-02-23 08:05:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

You could always not commit crimes on the res, Whitey. They have enough troubles without you going out there to rape their women AGAIN.


Yeah but wearing those slutty deer skins, they're totally asking for it.
 
2013-02-23 08:18:55 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.


My only regret is that I have only one 'Funny' to give you.
 
2013-02-23 08:24:32 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.


No. There are several links in this thread that show that people like to comment about VAWA without actually having read the act.
 
2013-02-23 09:35:54 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan: demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!

So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally thinkknow federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!

I will use short words for you here:
The Feds can try these crimes.
Tribes can not when the guy/gal on trial is not part of the tribe.
These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.
Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.

*Empirical fact.

/They wait for a tribe member to die from the abuse, then they prosecute.
//This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.
///Got it? Good.


Speaking as someone who's testified for the prosecution in dozens of $50.00 fine cases in federal magistrate's courts, I'm gonna have to say that you're full of shiat.
 
2013-02-23 10:00:40 PM  

gadian: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: No, that is not exactly what they are, as demonstrated by (among many other things) the fact that the United States Congress would have to authorize them to exercise jurisdiction in these cases.

"If you commit a crime on a reservation"... The problem is more salient in the "if you DON'T commit a crime on a reservation" scenario.

I'll refer  you to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.  Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands.
Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency."


Re: the words before your bolded bit

I'll refer you to the USSC decision Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, which is the state of the law today. So, their ability to enforce their laws is limited to tribal members.
 
Displayed 7 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report