The case concerned Jimcy McGirt, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who was convicted of sex crimes against a child by state authorities in the Nation’s historical boundaries. He said that only federal authorities were entitled to prosecute him.
Holy semantics, I can not believe the lengths people goto so they can legally rape children.
I'm wondering how most other tribes feel about this... I know the tribe I'm descendent from (though recognised in other states, they are not in mine even though we have a council) fucking despises Cherokee councils. They act as if they're the only "real" tribe and actively work against interests of the Dine, Haudenosaunee, Lenape, and PNW/Alaskan peoples. This ruling kinda cements their idea of sovereignty petty much at odds with how other US First Nations councils see their role.
I shall go to the meetings I've been putting off and report back... Could be juicy...
There is a fuck ton of oil and natural gas production in eastern OK. Its also a massive shit hole and I hate it. So kindof torn on who to root for here.
What does this mean for the oil industry there, though? I'm not a burger so I dont know if tribal jurisdiction means native americans have jurisdiction over contract law / land ownership. Can they actually just decide to forbid current or future extraction?
This is such a rad 5th amendment case before you even get into leasing Rez land but to answer your question, if the tribal leaders don’t like money they can just not sign a lease. They would be the only ones in the continental US to opt out instead of just negotiate but yeah sure they could say fuck it the sheer natural beauty of Oklahoma sustains our people
Oh I'm Sure they will juste take the profits and let oil producers do wtv they want, but that would be a huge blow to the state to just lose effective control over half of it's territory. The 5 tribes played the long game, they cucked whitey out of 170 years of growth and development 🤣
What does this mean for the oil industry there, though
Probably great for them. Whatever tribe ends up controlling the oil fields will want that money without all those pesky middle class mayo environmentalists telling them to go be poor.
I take issue with the implication that only Easter OK is a shithole. All of Oklahoma is a shithole, that’s why we moved the Indians there in the first place.
I mean, on second thought this makes sense: lawyers probably resort to challenging stuff on constitutional grounds only when all other possibilities are literally impossible. But yeah, impressive feat, you gotta admit.
Advocacy groups look out for cases pending that have some relation to an issue they want to push. A case relating to the power of a state to try a certain individual actually happens to be the perfect material from which to challenge the illegal revocation of a reservation in the past. Someone serving a ridiculously long sentence is an ideal test case, otherwise the person's term might expire before you're done with your arguments, rendering the case moot. Like the case that decided Miranda, the actual utility of this ruling to the defendant is minimal and he'll likely just be convicted again, he's just desperate enough to bother wasting his time on allowing the constitutional lawyers to throw this hail mary.
I literally can't understand your seethe over a case being decided that protects the rights of someone who the state would wish to accuse and convict of a serious offense. As if the government should have less responsibility to protect the rights of those it accuses of offenses of greater severity. You really want to give the state that power? Are you that goddamn stupid? We do not protect the rights of rapists and murderers for the sake of rapists and murderers. The severity of offense, and factual guilt or innocence, of anyone who's had their rights violated, is a logically irrelevant and redundant detail when deciding rights cases. It is precisely when applying sanctions of greatest severity that the state should be most restrained in it's ability to apply them.
The second you give the government the ability to shoot child rapists on sight with no possibility of penalty or judicial review, you have in fact given the government the ability to shoot anyone it wants on sight whenever it wants. If the government walks up to you and says "Child rapist" and then shoots you, what the hell is your family going to do about it, go to a judge? Whoops looks like you tossed that bit of the process out in your infinite wisdom, because after all "child rapists" don't deserve rights and it would be disgusting to protect the rights of a "child rapist". "Child rapist" therefore, just becomes something the government calls someone it wants to shoot for whatever reason before it shoots them, knowing that review of such judgement is impossible. A power to apply a certain sanction to a certain hated class, arbitrarily with no possibility of review of that judgement, is in practice logically equivalent to a general power to arbitrarily apply said force. The limitation to [a certain class] is logically redundant, a distraction, "child rapist, according to the executors discretion" is equivalent to "the executors discretion". Literally the only thing you are relying on in such an instant, is the governments word. You have decided to leave your rights in the hands of the states pinkie promise. Genius.
Many of these native reservations need to be dealt with. They're like little 3rd world countries full of rampant rape and sexual abuse of children and nobody does anything about it.
The Biden campaign has agreed to the standard 3 debates.
Either way, debates aren't relevant nor are they debates. They're a clown fiesta in which a carnival barker like Trump can rile up his poorly educated base.
Some of the biased big whigs have been writing pieces setting up the scenario that Biden debating is not worth it, or they give a ton of excuses. I don’t think he has the capacity to debate, at this point. Makes me sad, last time I cried was when my grandma couldn’t remember my name.
Yeah but it’s not a legally binding thing. Of course they are going to say they are good with the debates now, but they are building the case with placed fake news pieces about why he shouldn’t debate trump. Are you a super partisan that can’t see that Biden can barely string a coherent sentence together?
California, Michigan and New York are the biggest losers here.
California is already ~half federal land including the coast. This ruling carved up the rest of the state and makes it more federal land. The entire state. Along with Nevada, Arizona, Washington and Oregon.
New York is in the same pickle. OK is known for having a good relationship with reservations. They literally sided with the state against the federal government in the civil war.
Indian reservations are not federal land in the sense of those federal lands you doofus. The federal government only owns those lands "in trust" for the Indians, the Indians themselves have a beneficial title pursuant to the federal government title, that basically gives them all the rights of private ownership.
This actually wouldn't have any real application with regards to actual land rights anyway. The Creek Nation has in fact ceded most of this land to settlers, but it has ceded within the reservation. The reservation itself does not get disestablished, and still maintains some powers, until the time when congress officially passes a law disestablishing it. It has mostly legal implications.
It means state jurisdiction no longer exists in these areas. They now effectively become split between federal and tribal jurisdiction until congress dissolves all the treaties as they’re outdated.
This includes a lot of shit the state would be in charge of going void.
Tribes don’t have private ownership. That’s one of their main complaints cause they can’t do anything like dig for oil on their land since the federal government won’t allow it.
Just to help you in your efforts to spread across Reddit and seed drama, this decision definitely does not mean half of OK now actually belongs to Native Americans. This was about jurisdiction on tribal lands, and there’s no point in trying to explain that any further to you idiots other than to say don’t believe the thing about half of Oklahoma suddenly becoming its own native ethnostate.
but it does mean that if I murder a mayo girl with an ax on that half of Oklahoma, I won't be tried by a jury of fentanylcels, but either some tribal chief (automatic not guilty) or the feds (pardoned by the tribal chief Warren after Biden dies or is removed by 25th amendment), depending on the circumstances, right?
No, the Supreme Court already said that Indian courts don't have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. The sole exception is for domestic violence crimes, because apparently a lot of non-Indians were beating and raping Indian women with impunity by taking advantage of the fact that Indian courts don't have power over them, so Congress allowed Indian courts to prosecute non-Indian defendants when the crime is domestic violence against an Indian woman committed on a reservation.
If you murder a mayo girl with an ax on that half of Oklahoma, you'll be tried by fentanylcels, but if you murder Pocahontas with an ax because she wouldn't put out, then you might be tried by Hiawatha.
You get put in the time out tipi, get hotboxed in it with hallucinogenic drugs, and go on a vision quest to learn that the ancestors were proud of you killing a mayo.
Tribal courts and federal court are seen as "concurrent"
This ruling by SCOTUS basically says major crimes (covered by the MCA of 1885) committed by tribals members on tribal land (almost all of Oklahoma now) are not under state jurisdiction.
For major crimes outlined in the MCA, yeah. Those are specifically:
Murder
Manslaughter
Kidnapping
Maiming
A felony under chapter 109A (i.e. sexual abuse)
Incest
A felony assault under section 113 (e.g. assault with intent to commit murder or assault with a dangerous weapon)
An assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years
Felony child abuse or neglect,
Arson
Burglary
Robbery, and
A felony under section 661 of this title (which is apparently maritime larceny)
This ruling was actually quite specific in scope as to the application of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. It still has a lot of real world fallout but it's not like "Oklahoma is now owned by Native Americans".
The real thing IMO is going to be future cases based on precedent of this case (that the reservations have not been legally dissolved).
It's probably covered by something, just not this law. To cut them some slack they were probably not as worried about stuff like fraud back in the Gilded Age because everyone was doing it anyway.
Texas and Arizona get surrendered back to Mexico and you get a 4 year old Seminole bride who is actually a 2000 year old thunderbird.
Stuff I've seen on live pd the 4 times I've watched it there include: 30 year old neet pulling a katana on his parents and a 65 year old man who never had a driver's license finally getting caught.
AnnAnarchist is exactly the reason Idaho exists: nobody wanted the northern Rockies and it's violent, drunk miners in their state so they formed a new one, called it "Idaho" (a meaningless name previously rejected by Colorado and the Oklahoma panhandle) and we've all been stuck with them ever since.
Holy fuck Gorsuch, the mad man. Roberts literally became Anthony Kennedy 2.0, hmmmm stare decisis mean we still kill bebe, boring. Gorsuch be like, how about textualism means 1964 civil rights act applies 2 trans, and also why not give Indians half of Oklahoma.
95 comments
5 TheBigDogAteMyAss 2020-07-09
Holy semantics, I can not believe the lengths people goto so they can legally rape children.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2020-07-09
The Federal case will be handed off to tribal court with no doubt. This was about bigger treaty issues.
2 fat_cox 2020-07-09
Wrong. The case was under Oklahoma and will now go to federal or tribal court.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2020-07-09
Shit yeah sorry
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2020-07-09
Libertarianism is one hell of a drug.
2 Whaddaulookinat 2020-07-09
I'm wondering how most other tribes feel about this... I know the tribe I'm descendent from (though recognised in other states, they are not in mine even though we have a council) fucking despises Cherokee councils. They act as if they're the only "real" tribe and actively work against interests of the Dine, Haudenosaunee, Lenape, and PNW/Alaskan peoples. This ruling kinda cements their idea of sovereignty petty much at odds with how other US First Nations councils see their role.
I shall go to the meetings I've been putting off and report back... Could be juicy...
1 watermark1917 2020-07-09
Which Indians are most based? Which should I larp as?
Also imagine not having any inbuilt genetic resistance to smallpox lmao
1 Whaddaulookinat 2020-07-09
Shit I totally didn't see this but the Pueblo seem mad chill tbh
1 SnapshillBot 2020-07-09
Wasnt asking you, cretin.
Let me speak in your language of Cretin Retardian. Im a bit rusty. I haven't fully grasped your language.
Ok...ahem
Darrrr dyurrr wewoo wewoo wavaba nyarn wohoo wohoo waaaaaaa durrr durhhhhhh duhhhh
For people who arent Cretin Retardians, that translates to:
Go fuck your Dad's dick hole like the good little sperm you are
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 zergling_Lester 2020-07-09
Are their oil fields located on that territory? Can't the US government rectify the misunderstanding by annexing that land by force properly?
4 Corporal-Hicks 2020-07-09
There is a fuck ton of oil and natural gas production in eastern OK. Its also a massive shit hole and I hate it. So kindof torn on who to root for here.
3 ATissu 2020-07-09
What does this mean for the oil industry there, though? I'm not a burger so I dont know if tribal jurisdiction means native americans have jurisdiction over contract law / land ownership. Can they actually just decide to forbid current or future extraction?
2 NZVikingRugger 2020-07-09
Pretty sure they could but being that they always need money they will probably drill it all.
2 ManBearFridge 2020-07-09
They will get a much better price than the US government would have thought.
2 jerryjoneshere 2020-07-09
This is such a rad 5th amendment case before you even get into leasing Rez land but to answer your question, if the tribal leaders don’t like money they can just not sign a lease. They would be the only ones in the continental US to opt out instead of just negotiate but yeah sure they could say fuck it the sheer natural beauty of Oklahoma sustains our people
1 ATissu 2020-07-09
Oh I'm Sure they will juste take the profits and let oil producers do wtv they want, but that would be a huge blow to the state to just lose effective control over half of it's territory. The 5 tribes played the long game, they cucked whitey out of 170 years of growth and development 🤣
1 VidiotGamer 2020-07-09
Probably great for them. Whatever tribe ends up controlling the oil fields will want that money without all those pesky middle class mayo environmentalists telling them to go be poor.
2 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2020-07-09
I take issue with the implication that only Easter OK is a shithole. All of Oklahoma is a shithole, that’s why we moved the Indians there in the first place.
3 GhoulishBibliotheca 2020-07-09
Give that defense lawyer a gold medal when he somehow found a way to get a guy raping a 4 year old off the hook.
So what is the traditional tribal sentence for raping 4 year olds?
3 ramen_poodle_soup 2020-07-09
Honestly legendary defense lawyer. Went in with his client being prosecuted for raping a child, left with half of Oklahoma.
3 cheeZetoastee 2020-07-09
i think that lawyer can claim GOAT status now
1 zergling_Lester 2020-07-09
I mean, on second thought this makes sense: lawyers probably resort to challenging stuff on constitutional grounds only when all other possibilities are literally impossible. But yeah, impressive feat, you gotta admit.
2 watermark1917 2020-07-09
Advocacy groups look out for cases pending that have some relation to an issue they want to push. A case relating to the power of a state to try a certain individual actually happens to be the perfect material from which to challenge the illegal revocation of a reservation in the past. Someone serving a ridiculously long sentence is an ideal test case, otherwise the person's term might expire before you're done with your arguments, rendering the case moot. Like the case that decided Miranda, the actual utility of this ruling to the defendant is minimal and he'll likely just be convicted again, he's just desperate enough to bother wasting his time on allowing the constitutional lawyers to throw this hail mary.
I literally can't understand your seethe over a case being decided that protects the rights of someone who the state would wish to accuse and convict of a serious offense. As if the government should have less responsibility to protect the rights of those it accuses of offenses of greater severity. You really want to give the state that power? Are you that goddamn stupid? We do not protect the rights of rapists and murderers for the sake of rapists and murderers. The severity of offense, and factual guilt or innocence, of anyone who's had their rights violated, is a logically irrelevant and redundant detail when deciding rights cases. It is precisely when applying sanctions of greatest severity that the state should be most restrained in it's ability to apply them.
The second you give the government the ability to shoot child rapists on sight with no possibility of penalty or judicial review, you have in fact given the government the ability to shoot anyone it wants on sight whenever it wants. If the government walks up to you and says "Child rapist" and then shoots you, what the hell is your family going to do about it, go to a judge? Whoops looks like you tossed that bit of the process out in your infinite wisdom, because after all "child rapists" don't deserve rights and it would be disgusting to protect the rights of a "child rapist". "Child rapist" therefore, just becomes something the government calls someone it wants to shoot for whatever reason before it shoots them, knowing that review of such judgement is impossible. A power to apply a certain sanction to a certain hated class, arbitrarily with no possibility of review of that judgement, is in practice logically equivalent to a general power to arbitrarily apply said force. The limitation to [a certain class] is logically redundant, a distraction, "child rapist, according to the executors discretion" is equivalent to "the executors discretion". Literally the only thing you are relying on in such an instant, is the governments word. You have decided to leave your rights in the hands of the states pinkie promise. Genius.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-07-09
What's the pALESTINE angle here though?
1 Your_Freud 2020-07-09
Promoted to shaman
2 ManBearFridge 2020-07-09
That's what happens to the 4 year old.
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-09
Many of these native reservations need to be dealt with. They're like little 3rd world countries full of rampant rape and sexual abuse of children and nobody does anything about it.
1 [deleted] 2020-07-09
[removed]
1 cakejerry_B0T 2020-07-09
What’s the official Neo liberal reasoning for why Biden not doing the debates is acksually good 🤔
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-09
The Biden campaign has agreed to the standard 3 debates.
Either way, debates aren't relevant nor are they debates. They're a clown fiesta in which a carnival barker like Trump can rile up his poorly educated base.
1 cakejerry_B0T 2020-07-09
Would you agree they are afraid to let Biden do them. He’s more dementia ridden than trump
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-09
How are they afraid if they've agreed to the debates.
1 cakejerry_B0T 2020-07-09
Some of the biased big whigs have been writing pieces setting up the scenario that Biden debating is not worth it, or they give a ton of excuses. I don’t think he has the capacity to debate, at this point. Makes me sad, last time I cried was when my grandma couldn’t remember my name.
1 professorshillphd 2020-07-09
I mean, it's not worth debating Trump, but that doesn't change the fact the Biden campaign agreed to them so your argument is incoherent.
1 cakejerry_B0T 2020-07-09
Yeah but it’s not a legally binding thing. Of course they are going to say they are good with the debates now, but they are building the case with placed fake news pieces about why he shouldn’t debate trump. Are you a super partisan that can’t see that Biden can barely string a coherent sentence together?
1 [deleted] 2020-07-09
[deleted]
1 fat_cox 2020-07-09
Not really, the guy is just trading state prison for federal prison.
2 jerryjoneshere 2020-07-09
A really fucking good trade according the crim defense bros
2 ramen_poodle_soup 2020-07-09
As Dave Chapelle said about Bill Cosby, “he rapes, but he also saves”
2 snallygaster 2020-07-09
Time to bring democracy to America's indigenous peoples.
8 ponypopper 2020-07-09
Operation Indian Liberation
1 pandeyji_ka_ladka 2020-07-09
Oil Il L
2 TrailerParkRide 2020-07-09
Slur-galoo happening over oil on Oklahoma Indian land would be peak 2020
1 KetchupStewedFries 2020-07-09
Its because only worthless scum spend their time begging the government for money.
2 watermark1917 2020-07-09
Yep worthless scum like the settlers who begged the government for all that free land. Good thing this is being taken from those layabouts.
1 KetchupStewedFries 2020-07-09
You good their watermark? Running out of fent?
1 Tytos_Lannister 2020-07-09
ruralcels and fly-overcels can't be trusted with "their" land, so it's a good ruling I guess
4 Wewraw 2020-07-09
California, Michigan and New York are the biggest losers here.
California is already ~half federal land including the coast. This ruling carved up the rest of the state and makes it more federal land. The entire state. Along with Nevada, Arizona, Washington and Oregon.
New York is in the same pickle. OK is known for having a good relationship with reservations. They literally sided with the state against the federal government in the civil war.
Fucking wacky ass American politics.
1 watermark1917 2020-07-09
Indian reservations are not federal land in the sense of those federal lands you doofus. The federal government only owns those lands "in trust" for the Indians, the Indians themselves have a beneficial title pursuant to the federal government title, that basically gives them all the rights of private ownership.
This actually wouldn't have any real application with regards to actual land rights anyway. The Creek Nation has in fact ceded most of this land to settlers, but it has ceded within the reservation. The reservation itself does not get disestablished, and still maintains some powers, until the time when congress officially passes a law disestablishing it. It has mostly legal implications.
1 Wewraw 2020-07-09
It means state jurisdiction no longer exists in these areas. They now effectively become split between federal and tribal jurisdiction until congress dissolves all the treaties as they’re outdated.
This includes a lot of shit the state would be in charge of going void.
Tribes don’t have private ownership. That’s one of their main complaints cause they can’t do anything like dig for oil on their land since the federal government won’t allow it.
2 GeminiRocket 2020-07-09
Yeah build that casino b*tch 👏 👏 👏
1 I_Never_Use_Slash_S 2020-07-09
Just to help you in your efforts to spread across Reddit and seed drama, this decision definitely does not mean half of OK now actually belongs to Native Americans. This was about jurisdiction on tribal lands, and there’s no point in trying to explain that any further to you idiots other than to say don’t believe the thing about half of Oklahoma suddenly becoming its own native ethnostate.
That’s not true and you’ll look dumb spouting it.
2 Tytos_Lannister 2020-07-09
but it does mean that if I murder a mayo girl with an ax on that half of Oklahoma, I won't be tried by a jury of fentanylcels, but either some tribal chief (automatic not guilty) or the feds (pardoned by the tribal chief Warren after Biden dies or is removed by 25th amendment), depending on the circumstances, right?
4 CriticalDuty 2020-07-09
No, the Supreme Court already said that Indian courts don't have jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. The sole exception is for domestic violence crimes, because apparently a lot of non-Indians were beating and raping Indian women with impunity by taking advantage of the fact that Indian courts don't have power over them, so Congress allowed Indian courts to prosecute non-Indian defendants when the crime is domestic violence against an Indian woman committed on a reservation.
If you murder a mayo girl with an ax on that half of Oklahoma, you'll be tried by fentanylcels, but if you murder Pocahontas with an ax because she wouldn't put out, then you might be tried by Hiawatha.
2 GhoulishBibliotheca 2020-07-09
You get put in the time out tipi, get hotboxed in it with hallucinogenic drugs, and go on a vision quest to learn that the ancestors were proud of you killing a mayo.
2 2cimarafa 2020-07-09
I thought the government explicitly doesn’t allow non-Indians to be tried by Indian courts for a lot of crimes.
1 Kijafa 2020-07-09
Yes, this ruling only applies to members of tribes.
2 watermark1917 2020-07-09
This happens all the time in currently existing reservations
1 rakrakaon 2020-07-09
Probably a non issue since you’ll be killed by a drunk driver before you’re even caught.
1 snallygaster 2020-07-09
iirc tribal jurisdiction doesn't cover state(?) or federal crimes
2 Kijafa 2020-07-09
Tribal courts and federal court are seen as "concurrent"
This ruling by SCOTUS basically says major crimes (covered by the MCA of 1885) committed by tribals members on tribal land (almost all of Oklahoma now) are not under state jurisdiction.
2 snallygaster 2020-07-09
interesting- so there's federal, tribal, and nothing else?
2 Kijafa 2020-07-09
For major crimes outlined in the MCA, yeah. Those are specifically:
This ruling was actually quite specific in scope as to the application of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. It still has a lot of real world fallout but it's not like "Oklahoma is now owned by Native Americans".
The real thing IMO is going to be future cases based on precedent of this case (that the reservations have not been legally dissolved).
3 snallygaster 2020-07-09
Seems totally reasonable to me. I'm surprised that financial crimes like fraud aren't covered, though.
1 Kijafa 2020-07-09
It's probably covered by something, just not this law. To cut them some slack they were probably not as worried about stuff like fraud back in the Gilded Age because everyone was doing it anyway.
1 PUBLIQclopAccountant 2020-07-09
If you lose your shirt because of stock market fraud, you were too poor to be investing in the first place.
2 zergling_Lester 2020-07-09
A lawyer on a sister sub posted a helpful chart.
1 [deleted] 2020-07-09
[removed]
1 [deleted] 2020-07-09
[removed]
1 Kijafa 2020-07-09
Only if you're a member of a tribe.
1 NZVikingRugger 2020-07-09
25th specifically states that the president must be a him, so Warren has to get a strapon before s/he can be president.
2 Neon_needles 2020-07-09
Imagine being indian and doing crime all the time now. Lol at a child rapists harshest punishment was possible removal of reservation benefits.
1 elephantofdoom 2020-07-09
It does mean that we are gonna get to witness about 20 years worth of tax and mineral rights arguments.
1 ManBearFridge 2020-07-09
Okay but how can we make it happen?
1 -Acceptable-Risk- 2020-07-09
Wow so Elizabeth Warren really was Native American all along
1 Shubard75 2020-07-09
Wait so what happens if I murder someone in Tulsa? Theoretically.
5 cute-and-funny 2020-07-09
Texas and Arizona get surrendered back to Mexico and you get a 4 year old Seminole bride who is actually a 2000 year old thunderbird.
Stuff I've seen on live pd the 4 times I've watched it there include: 30 year old neet pulling a katana on his parents and a 65 year old man who never had a driver's license finally getting caught.
2 GulielmusBastardus 2020-07-09
If the person you murder is an Indian you can only get tried by the federal government, not the state.
1 Your_Freud 2020-07-09
You bring their scalp in for a reward obviously
1 fat_cox 2020-07-09
https://mbadmin.jaunt.cloud/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Table-1-Breakdown-of-federal-state-1-1024x789.jpg
1 Lysis10 2020-07-09
Looks like Oklahoma is getting some sweet casinos.
1 EarlCampbellsMeat 2020-07-09
What's the quickest way to notify oklahoma of this? Do you just add messages to their next shipment of canned chicken or whatever they eat?
1 fernplanet 2020-07-09
THE RED MAN WILL RISE AGAIN
3 ironicshitpostr 2020-07-09
Finally my 1/60th Cherokee princess heritage is relevant
1 Dysiak 2020-07-09
I had an ex who was maybe 1/16th and she really embraced it. It was the most obnoxious thing ever.
1 bumshecksagogo 2020-07-09
Why can't we give them the entirety of Idaho and call it even?
1 DeadlyRNG 2020-07-09
What does /u/ AnnArchist think of this?
1 bumshecksagogo 2020-07-09
AnnAnarchist is exactly the reason Idaho exists: nobody wanted the northern Rockies and it's violent, drunk miners in their state so they formed a new one, called it "Idaho" (a meaningless name previously rejected by Colorado and the Oklahoma panhandle) and we've all been stuck with them ever since.
1 ManBearFridge 2020-07-09
Give them the whole state. No major loss here.
1 watermark1917 2020-07-09
Holy fuck Gorsuch, the mad man. Roberts literally became Anthony Kennedy 2.0, hmmmm stare decisis mean we still kill bebe, boring. Gorsuch be like, how about textualism means 1964 civil rights act applies 2 trans, and also why not give Indians half of Oklahoma.
1 [deleted] 2020-07-09
[removed]