Search the Community

Washington (CNN)--July 9th, 2020 The Supreme Court said Thursday that a large swath of eastern Oklahoma, including Tulsa, is Native American land for purposes of federal criminal law in a decision that the state argued could call into question thousands of state prosecutions for serious crimes. Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the 5-4 opinion joined by the liberals on the bench. "Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law," said Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. "Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word," he said. Under the law, crimes involving Native Americans on a reservation are under federal, not state, jurisdiction. The unique case represented the opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the limits of tribal sovereignty and revisit the country's horrific history of displacing native tribes from their land. The question before the court involved a case brought by Jimcy McGirt, a member of Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, who argued that his case ought to be tried by the federal government because the crimes were committed on the land of historic Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The distinction of whether the large swath of eastern Oklahoma qualified as reservation land was key -- under federal law, major crimes committed by individuals on Native American land must be tried by the federal government. "The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises," Ian Gershengorn, a lawyer for McGirt who argued the case in May, said in a statement to CNN. "Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation—and the Court today correctly recognized that that this reservation endures."

We have no problem with laws regarding truth in advertising. It is entirely legal to sue those engaged in false advertising - false claims and engineered misleading information. It is entirely possible to do the same regarding “Truth in reporting”. Many countries (outside the USA) not thought of as oppressive, authoritarian, socialist or communist have laws and regulations regarding “truth” - which is in some cases considerably in a grey area - but quite often not. We should consider national legislation in the USA regarding allowing litigation against false reporting.

This guy... he has a gift as a statesman. Every time I see him speak on video I am impressed again. And I consider Russia the enemy and him a bad guy, so this is really saying something. Someone via Anonymous theorizes that Russia hates the USA and wanted Trump to win solely because they think it will ruin us, like mwahahahaha. They point out the close relation of Russia with China. Which Trump is the enemy of due to the trade stuff he insisting on. But I think maybe he just has a point about the whole military and war stuff, namely that we simply do not take him (or anyone else) seriously. I remember Iran's former lunatic leader whose name I forget right now. He said that he could say the most specific things about his intents to do us in and that our response was basically to wave it away like he couldn't possibly mean it. (I see the left doing that concerning Islam and Sharia as well. Like we simply cannot wrap our brains around anybody thinking differently than we do. A lot of that was seen in the recent election I suspect.) I found this video interesting. I don't know what room the new President will have for making changes, if any, in our approach to war... but it would be nice if we would at the very least, take more seriously international leaders. I turned this up to 1.5 speed in the settings which is more reasonable, for reading the subtitles. RC