Reason Roundup

Oklahoma Can't Break Congress's Promise That Native American Reservation Would Be 'Secure Forever,' Rules Supreme Court

Plus: Majority think people should be able to sue police officers, and more...

|

"If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." Per treaties signed in the 1830s, nearly half of Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa, belongs to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed on Thursday in a 5-4 decision. The ruling could have huge implications for criminal convictions in Oklahoma and other states, Chief Justice John Roberts warned in a dissent.

"In this case, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had to fight long and hard to protect their homelands," said John Echohawk, the executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, in a statement. "In holding the federal government to its treaty obligations, the U.S. Supreme Court put to rest what never should have been at question."

At the micro level, the case—McGirt v. Oklahoma—concerns the state's prosecution of alleged crimes that took place in this territory.

"Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses" and "unsuccessfully argued in state post conviction proceedings that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation," explains a Supreme Court synopsis. "He seeks a new trial, which, he contends, must take place in federal court."

But the case goes way beyond McGirt's particular situation—as quickly becomes clear in the opening of the Court's decision, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan:

On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding "all their land, East of the Mississippi river," the U. S. government agreed by treaty that "the Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians."

Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and "permanent home to the whole Creek nation," located in what is now Oklahoma. The government further promised that "[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves."

Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.

For the purposes of this case, the key question is "Did he [McGirt] commit his crimes in Indian country?" the opinion states. Answer:

No one disputes that Mr. McGirt's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute. But, in seeking to defend the state-court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today.

At another level, then, Mr. McGirt's case winds up as a contest between State and Tribe.

Gorsuch points out that "the scope of their dispute is limited; nothing we might say today could unsettle Oklahoma's authority to try non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians on the lands in question." However:

If Mr. McGirt and the Tribe are right, the State has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed in a portion of Northeastern Oklahoma that includes most of the city of Tulsa. Responsibility to try these matters would fall instead to the federal government and Tribe. Recently, the question has taken on more salience too. While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion.

The Supreme Court majority sided with the 10th Circuit, McGirt, and the Creek Tribe, concluding:

The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe's authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.

So…what does it all mean?

"The decision puts in doubt hundreds of state convictions of Native Americans and could change the handling of prosecutions across a vast swath of the state," says The New York Times. "Lawyers were also examining whether it had broader implications for taxing, zoning and other government functions. But many of the specific impacts will be determined by negotiations between state and federal authorities and five Native American tribes in Oklahoma."

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted dire results:

The state's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma.

But "the decision is a stunning reaffirmance of the nation's obligations to Native Americans," notes Ronald Mann at SCOTUSblog. "It confirms the existence of the largest tract of reservation land in the country, about 19 million acres encompassing the entire eastern half of Oklahoma."

"The Supreme Court has affirmed that a promise is a promise: that treaties between the United States and Tribes are the law of the land—no matter how many times the federal government has violated those treaties in the past—and that lands reserved for Tribes remain Indian Country, now and in the future," said U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D–N.M.), vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. "While no court decision can correct centuries of injustice committed against Indigenous people, today's ruling is a historic step forward to safeguard Tribal sovereignty for decades to come."


ELECTION 2020

Will (white) women vote for Donald Trump again? "Over the last three years I conducted dozens of focus groups with both college-educated and non-college-educated female Trump voters," writes Sarah Longwell at The Bulwark.

And the answer given most commonly for why they voted for Donald Trump is "I didn't vote for Donald Trump. I voted against Hillary Clinton."

In 2016, Democrats understood that Hillary Clinton was a deeply polarizing candidate. But even they didn't grasp the full magnitude of it. Right-leaning and Republican female voters had spent more than a decade hating both Clintons, and they didn't stop just because Hillary's opponent was an unrepentant misogynist.

In fact, Bill Clinton's legacy of similarly disgusting behavior with women—and Hillary Clinton's defense of her husband—had the effect of blunting Trump's own execrable track record. These women voters decided that either way, there'd be a guy with a long history of sexual malfeasance living in the White House."

But that was then. Since Trump took office, even women who had voted for him in 2016 "began shifting away from the president," Longwell writes.

A recent New York Times Upshot/Siena College Poll showed Trump trailing Joe Biden by 22 points with women. That's 9 points bigger than the gender gap was in 2016.

And while much has been made of college-educated women in the suburbs ditching Trump, a recent ABC/Washington Post survey shows that Trump's support with white non-college-educated women has fallen by 11 points.


QUICK HITS

• Florida saw its highest single-day death toll from COVID-19 on July 8. The state department of health reported yesterday that 120 people had been killed by COVID-19 in the past 24 hours. South Carolina is also starting to see disturbing coronavirus trends.

• Kazakhstan says it isn't plagued with a new form of super-deadly pneumonia, contrary to a warning put out by the Chinese Embassy in Kazakhstan that this pneumonia strain had already killed 1,700 people.

• "Unanimity is neither possible nor necessary to fight racism," writes Conor Friedersdorf in some musings on our cultural moment. "On the contrary, attempts to secure unanimity can undermine the fight: They needlessly divide anti-racists and weaken everyone's ability to grasp reality."

Advertisement

NEXT: Congratulations to Sam Bray,

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Will (white) women vote for Donald Trump again?

    He’s just gotten more dreamy.

    1. I mean, Biden isn’t exactly woman-friendly himself. Give “Handy” Joe some more airtime, and women will be voting against him too.

      1. Yeah, all the Repubs have to do is run footage from the Biden Careless Whisper video. Man, that’s tough to watch.

        1. Will that be enough to get them – the monolith that they are – to vote against Biden? Because apparently the consensus is that they were voting against Hillary in 16.

          1. Actually, good question. I’d say video evidence of creepiness would be hard to overlook.

            Will the Repubs actually use footage like that? A Hail Mary if things are looking really bad at the end of October?

            “In fact, Bill Clinton’s legacy of similarly disgusting behavior with women—and Hillary Clinton’s defense of her husband—had the effect of blunting Trump’s own execrable track record. These women voters decided that either way, there’d be a guy with a long history of sexual malfeasance living in the White House.”

            But maybe Biden won’t blunt “Trump’s own execrable track record”. And during the debates (if there are any), maybe Biden’s incoherence and fumbling with words will remind the monolith of their dads, and they will have a soft spot in their hearts for him.

            Still too early to tell, I guess.

            1. I don’t discount Joe’s wondering hands but Hillary had way more baggage then just Bill’s affairs and her conduct in response. She just comes off as a craven, elitist power hungry politician who will say anything to win and didn’t care how that effected the average American. Uncle Joe is the just a bumbler in many minds and bumbler may just beat boorish in this election.

              I agree to early to tell.

              1. Hillary was clearly too out of touch and too insulated to appeal to a broad case. But Biden also appears out of touch.

                Say what you will about Trump’s constant tweeting and how it’s unseemly, but he clearly has his pulse on the current social media conversations. With him, it’s not filtered through a group of advisors and PR staff-we know exactly what’s he’s looking at.

                1. Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!OPt I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…

                  go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste……Home Profit System

            2. As someone who is married to one of these College Grad White Women I still give Trump the edge. They are both troubling, however I see Trump as more of a lady’s man that charmed women rather than molest them. That secret tape that was leaked was just locker room talk that all guys do when they don’t think anyone is listening. Biden on the other hand is more of a touch’em and plead innocence kinda guy, much more kreepy in my opinion.

              But sexual proclivities aside Biden is running full speed into the arms of the wacky national socialists that is the Democratic party currently, and educated women are pragmatic and most are middle to upper middle class professionals or stay at home mom’s. So they may say they will vote Dem, my guess is when the time comes they will go with the Republicans, they may pass laws that make it more difficult to get an abortion (most of these women are not lining up for them anyway) but they are not bragging about how much more of your money they are going to take from you and there are not many of them out there denouncing the US and capitalism.

          2. Won’t matter, just have to get enough of them to not vote at all.

            Trump’s base is still rabid and will show up in droves, the more “fuck it, I’m just gonna watch Netflix” that happens on election night the better it is for Trump.

        2. The hilarious part is that video was put together by a Bernie Bro.

          1. Most of my Bernie supporting friends have no interest in voting for Biden. A few have even said they’d almost rather vote Trump, because fuck it.

            1. Your buddies are probably the exception, to be honest. Most Bernie supporters appear to be jobbers to the DNC just like he is.

              1. eh, I don’t think so. Considering its the proggies who are the ones rioting in the streets over supposed racism right now, Biden’s gotta be a pretty big pill to swallow, considering his actions that contributed to incarceration. He’s also got a troubling history with women, I’d say it depends on who he picks for a VP. He picks one of the squad, or Stacey “The election was unfair because I lost” Abrams, I could see them voting for Biden. If he gets Harris or another establishment Democrat, then hell no. Add that into the continued rumors that the black community is feeling split this time around, and the Democrats aren’t going to have the votes to be competitive.

                1. The narrative already has that covered.

                  Biden spent 8 years atoning for his sins as he sat second fiddle to a black man, taking his direction without is much as a peep in opposition. This act of selflessness cleansed him of his dirty white heritage.

                  Nevermind that his biggest “accomplishments” while in congress are directly responsible for many, many of the problems in the black community.

                  Nevermind that even though every major city that has “protests” has been run exclusively by Democrats for 50 or more years, with police policy in these cities being completely owned by Team Blue, Biden is the White Knight savior of America from the bad orange man.

                  Nevermind that Biden is a fucking creep extraordinaire who has a credible accusation of sexual assault against him.

                  The only thing that matters is Orange Man Bad.

                  The left is nothing but a fucking joke. One that isn’t very funny.

                  1. Awww… ya see how much fun a Biden Presidency is going to be? Watching sad sacks grit their teeth while their obvious racism shines through? Come on… Biden 2020 and 2024!!

                    1. Yes, it would be amusing to witness the nation’s most famous gaffe machine stumble, stutter, and stammer through his term. But the power would be in the hands of some of the most evil, despicable cretins in the country. No thanks.

              2. A lot of the youth have a directionless accelterationist bent tbh.

                1. Most of my friends aren’t all that youthful. But yeah.

              3. That’s probably why they are my friends.

            2. Listen, I’m not saying Trump hasn’t been fun— because he has. And revealing as to the integrity of so-called libertarians who sucked on Dear Leader’s wang for four years. We know what kind of credibility they have on any subject at any time: zero. But, come on, as a BERNIE Bro myself I know the true value of a Biden vote and that value is to watch all you poor sad sacks bitch and moan and bitch and moan some more and tell us how this is all tyranny and it’s time to grab your guns. Oh man, that’s going to be fucking great. I can’t wait.

              1. Not nearly as great as your wife getting punched out for giving a black woman the side-eye is going to be.

              2. You think any of the trump fanatics commenting here are actual libertarians? They’re as libertarian as you are.

        3. Holy Shit that is funny. I owe you a beer

        4. Wow, that really *is* grim.

          “Vote Gropey Joe! Our Molester Isn’t Orange!”

      2. Is it her turn?

        1. If the ‘her’ is Michelle Obama, maybe.

          No, she doesn’t want the job. Yes, she and her husband were and are a lazy pair of race-baiting grifters. But…if she runs as a VP with Joe, a whole lot of Dems will get hot and bothered at the prospect of Obama, the 3rd Term.

          Will that be enough for them to win? Shrug.

        2. “Time to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling!”

            1. RuPaul vs. Kanye

    2. Hello.

      The future is bleak.

      1. We will all be dead soon.

      2. The only thing America really has to fear from Biden is his choice for running mate.

        1. Biden is dead.

          Socialists control his mind.

          Week-end at Joe’s.

          Except this one is a horror movie.

        2. To unite all the current democrat factions Joe should pick Shirley Q. Liquor for VP.

    3. If Trump captures the spray-on tan demographic, he may be able to swing CA.

    4. Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!OPt I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…

      go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste…… Full Detail Here.

  2. NEW 66% of public says civilians should have the power to sue police officers to hold them accountable for misconduct, excessive use of force.

    Unless those 66% suddenly become single issue voters on the subject, Congress doesn’t care. And the courts definitely don’t care.

    1. Even then, who on the ballot are they going to vote for?

    2. And of course, just because you can sue a cop doesn’t mean the cop is going to pay. He will have insurance paid for by the city, or the city will be contractually obligated to defend and pay up for him. And in the smallest possible chance that the cop was ACTUALLY held monetarily responsible for damages, that cop would just declare bankruptcy and continue to work. And this of course assumes that you can get a jury to rule against a police officer.

      The idea that QI is some sort of silver bullet is just plain silly. People have been able to sue governments for years. The fact that the government had to shell out 10s of Millions of dollars in punitive damages has not done one thing to get cities to rein in their cops.

      Don’t get me wrong, QI is wrong just on principal. Get rid of it, please. But it is hardly the reform that is going to deal with bad cops.

      1. I hate to say it, but I think the reason QI is being so hyped is because it’s the thing that media thinks can realistically actually get rid as red meat to throw to the mob. The people that actually understand all the incentives and protections in place for police officers know that QI is ultimately just a drop in the bucket of the issues they face to real reform. It’s been decided that it’s the low hanging fruit and it’s elimination can be oversold as a symbolic victory that shows they’re making real progress.

        In reality, nothing will actually change and the media can continue to disingenuously milk the grievance cow for clicks, views and support for their team (who will continue to do the opposite of what they promise for their constituency.)

        1. “I hate to say it, but I think the reason QI is being so hyped is because it’s the thing that media thinks can realistically actually get rid as red meat to throw to the mob”

          No, I think the opposite. I think it is being hyped because Conservatives, for whatever reason, are not jumping up and down to ban it. It is now a wedge issue, and so it is going to be flogged all day and all night for the same reason that we argue about insurance paying for birth control instead of just making that shit OTC.

          The most important first step to solving police brutality is a national use of force database. Let’s measure that shit, and identify the bad cops. And of course EVERYONE agrees we need to do it. And so what happens? We bitch about QI instead, and use that to derail a bill that included the UoF DB.

        2. Even that low hanging fruit is bitter to them. The 2 bills currently in Congress to reign in QI are basically dead in the water. The conversation has shifted from holding the police accountable, to the menace of statues in rural towns in the south. The talk of police accountability and equal treatment was little more than a pretext for white liberals to shift he conversation to bringing everything down.

          1. The conversation has shifted from holding the police accountable, to the menace of statues in rural towns in the south.

            Exactly. Which was always the danger of making this a racial issue instead of a specifically-focused police accountability issue. Now we’re getting meaningless symbolic gestures unrelated to the problem, like changing NFL team names and base names, and whether it’s okay to have statues of Thomas Jefferson and Ulysses S. Grant.

          2. “The talk of police accountability and equal treatment was little more than a pretext for white liberals to shift he conversation to bringing everything down.”

            No. There was a genuine to push to end QI and it had good momentum. The first bill in history to have tri partisan support. Too bad the senate Republicans are cop boot lickers.

            1. There was a genuine to push to end QI

              DOL Smoking rat poison again.

  3. Florida saw its highest single-day death toll from COVID-19 on July 8.

    They’re doing a terrible job hiding their numbers.

    1. Republicans in government doing a terrible job?

      1. Asshole bigot posting boring lies?

        1. Enjoying the culture war, Sevo?

          Enjoying the clingers’ final six months of political relevance?

          1. Asshole bigot posting boring lies?

    2. Funny, ENB didn’t call out California when it had its worst number of deaths yesterday. Really odd. I wonder why that is?

      1. 20 000 people move into Florida per month. It’s a highly transient state. Millions visit it. In, out, in, out.

        Not surprised one bit it got hit and then it’s going to recede.

        Florida is run by a governor who is at least seemingly tying to not let the insane irrational mob win the day. And he’s Republican.

        So….yeh. Duh.

      2. Or compare Florida’s worst day to say…. New York’s.

        Arizona had the Gilbert mayor go on CNN lying about starting triage. All the hospitals came out and the state DHS came out saying she was full of shit.

        Some people prefer narratives to facts. ENB is one of them.

      3. Episode 10,257 of “Reason didn’t say X, and I’m going to tell you what that means.”

        1. “Episode 10,257 of “Reason didn’t say X, and I’m going to tell you what that means.””

          Every now and again I agree with you on this. However not for this. ENB and her bubble clearly have a fascination with Florida and Texas. That California has EXACTLY the same problem never gets mentioned in her bubble, and I think that is worth pointing out. This is supposed to be Reason, so she should really be questioning that bubble, instead of just repeating what echoes around in there.

          1. The fact that he won’t accept that the reason that many of us are so critical is because this publication used to actually be a libertarian one makes me wonder if he’s actually a writer here.

            1. In other words, you used to like Reason when Obama was President, because they Reason was more critical of liberals. (That’s what you get when your party is in power, more criticism.)

              1. Actually I started subscribing to the hard copy magazine when Bush 2 was President. And I’ve voted Libertarian the entire time, including last election.

                So in other words you’re full of shit.

                1. Also, I started noticing some changes going back to when they hired Shreeka, which if I remember correctly, was the beginning of the Obama administration.

                2. Sorry if I lumped you in with the Trump fans, again. Disagree with you that Reason’s outlook has changed, and I’ve been a subscriber since about 1982.

      4. Because ENB is a birdbrain = I wonder why that is?

        1. I am pretty sure she has a certificate that in fact shows she doesn’t havedonkey bird brains.

      5. Different regions are at different stages in the epidemic. Why is this so surprising to people?
        And why do people keep conflating reporting dates with date of onset or death?

      6. Because Florida’s death rate is almost twice California’s? Try checking the two state’s populations relative each other.

        1. Death Rates as of July 10th
          California: 174 per million
          Florida: 191 per million
          Texas: 106 per million
          New York: 1664 per million
          New Jersey: 1751 per million

  4. On the contrary, attempts to secure unanimity can undermine the fight: They needlessly divide anti-racists and weaken everyone’s ability to grasp reality.

    WTF does reality have to do with this.

    1. How does one even divide ‘anti-racists’ one might wonder.

      1. *** scratches head ***

        Those who “passively hate racism” and those who “actively hate racism”?

        1. Those who know what racism is and those who use racism for political advantage?

      2. Those who want to use racism to defeat racism, and the sane people?

        1. winner

          I would have called myself anti-racist before it became the new religion. I find racism quite distasteful and counterproductive.

      3. Between people who are anti-racist and those who think they are but are actually racist. Kinda like being anti-fascist.

      4. Well, they divide between those who stick with the normal definition of racism and those who use the new, woke damned if you do damned if you don’t definition.

      5. How does one even divide ‘anti-racists’ one might wonder.

        A woodchipper?

      6. How does one even divide ‘anti-racists’ one might wonder.

        They do it all by themselves, which is the saving grace of the movement. At this point, they’ve actually given up on the deplorables altogether and are going after each other.

        I’m optimistic about all of this in the sense that I think this is how America’s “racial problem” ends – when the “Anti-Racist” movement becomes something everyone just rolls their eyes at. And we’re getting closer and closer by the day.

  5. A recent New York Times Upshot/Siena College Poll showed Trump trailing Joe Biden by 22 points with women.

    Biden is the relaxing bubble bath Hillary could never be.

    1. I didn’t trust the NY Times on anything, and that was BEFORE the proggies kicked out the last view folks who wanted to at least pretend they were unbiased. Excuse me if I don’t start taking them at their word now.

      1. True clingers cling to the bitter end.

        1. Asshole bigot posting boring lies.

        2. Preach it, gecko! Clinging, indeed.

        3. So you stand by Judith Millers reporting on WMDs in Iraq? I would have figured you gave up on them back when they were a mouth piece for the Bush admin. But I guess clingers got to cling.

          1. Yes, the NYT so frequently carried Bush’s water…

    2. Watch out for those hairy legs.

  6. Polls don’t mean a hell of a lot before Labor Day….

    OTOH, the question I have is this: Will Brain-Damaged Biden actually show up for the debates?

    I think he’ll be a total chickenshit and bow out. That is his track record for 47 years. And no doubt, this birdbrain Elizabeth Brown will rationalize it.

    1. Agreed. His campaign has to understand that any debate he enters with Trump would be the political equivalent of slitting his own throat. Trump can pound him on his decades-long record of fuck ups, and that’s before we factor in Joe’s inability to speak coherently or his numerous questionable activities.

      1. I’d say Biden’s obvious mental decline is a bigger issue than Trump’s debating ability, which isn’t that good, to be honest, since he doesn’t really have that good of an extemporaneous grasp on policy. His only real advantage was whether he ultimately recognized in 2016 that the game was already rigged against whomever the Republican candidate happened to be (which was Romney’s biggest mistake), and decided to play mind games instead.

        I’m about 90% certain right now that if any debates do take place, they’ll be via video and in separate locations. This will work more to Biden’s advantage, since the likelihood is pretty strong that some former DNC operative working at the news networks would provide the campaign with the questions ahead of time, like Brazille did for Hillary prior to the CNN debate, and give Biden canned answers to parrot. Biden might still screw that up, but the chances are FAR lower than if he has to come up with something off the top of his head.

        1. Also, it becomes a lot harder for Trump to fuck with Biden if they aren’t in the same room.

          1. Biden doesn’t need debates. Trump likely is too impulsive to avoid tinkering with the established terms. The next time Trump tries to tinker, Biden should tie his participation in debates to Trump’s release of tax returns.

            1. Lay off the Mello Yello bigot.

            2. And Jeff Dunham is booked up, so there’s no way to get recognizable sentences out of Biden’s yap.

            3. Nothing in this comment has any basis in reality.

            4. What are you attempting to imply?

      2. Huh? Both Biden and Trump are doddering old men. Neither one is going to shine on a debate stage. It’s just going to be super depressing realizing these are the two pathetic choices the major parties are offering the American people.

        1. Neither of them has to “shine,” it was always a question of what kind of mind games Trump might play to fuck with Biden, like he did with Hillary four years ago. It’s a lot harder to do that if you’re not in the same room with each other.

          1. So, when you say that, are you rooting for Trump to fuck with Biden? Is that’s what is important to you, as opposed to, say, the United States of America having competent governance?

            1. You’re saying a lot more with that response than I think you realize.

              1. Don’t be coy. What do you think I said?

                1. Besides your inferiority complex?

                  1. Ah, personal insults. You’ve got nuthin’.

                    1. Consider it an in-kind contribution.

                2. “There was a genuine to push to end QI”

                  Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

                3. The Biden as president would count as “competent governance”.

            2. If Trump CAN “fuck with Biden” then it proves decisivley that Biden can’t run anything.

    2. I listened to Biden’s speech yesterday, and it was really good. Maybe they’ve changed out the servos in his meat suit, or changed his meds, but he was hitting all the right notes.

      I know that this is not the same as a pressure, improv moment like debates. However, remember that Biden wasn’t horrible in debates just a year ago. He is not a doddering drool cup (yet). Don’t let the conservative sites fool you.

      1. It’s an interesting campaign for me from the standpoint that both candidates will only hurt their chances by opening their mouths (or Twitter feeds) off of message. Whenever Biden goes off message he comes off as if he has dementia. Whenever Trump goes off message he comes off as a pompous buffoon.

        Whoever has the ability to restrain their craziness will win the debates.

        1. “Whenever Trump goes off message he comes off as a pompous buffoon.”

          Trump has two buffoon modes. One is where he just says the stupidest eye rolling stuff. The other is where he just lambasts his opponent with made up shit. The latter wins him points in the debates, no matter how many “Fact Checks” come after words. Those fact checkers were running out of electrons to whine about what he said in the Hillary debates, and he still won.

          When comparing batshit crazies, Trump’s is more likely to win the debate than Biden’s.

          On the other hand, Biden is MUCH better than I think a lot of people give him credit. I watched him get bitch slapped by facts when Paul Ryan debated him. He just shook his head, looked at the camera and said, “People, don’t listen to a word this guy just said. He is lying to you and I want to take care of you.” It was a kill shot that meant nothing Ryan said or did was going to matter the rest of the debate.

          1. Bwahahahahaha…Thanks for the laugh. The consensus is Biden has become Mr. Magoo. I truly can’t wait for the first debate. Its going to be fantastic.

            https://youtu.be/7o5zipU6r7o?t=37

          2. For comparison Trump is Elmer Fudd.

            https://youtu.be/NOX0_FUGM6k

            Tell me? Whom would you vote for?

          3. Honestly though…its a sad state of affairs. So absurd its comedic.

    3. But just think: Joe could wear a mask and the Party could dub in another (or even multiple) speakers.

    4. Polls don’t mean a hell of a lot before election day.

      1. I agree. The polls had Carter trouncing Reagan. Hell, the polls had Mondale leading Reagan for some time.

        Can’t wait to cast my vote. Jo Jorgensen all the way. 🙂

        1. Have you seen her VP tho ? Dude is a straight up clown. Jo seems great from what I’ve seen, but choosing Spike Cohen as her running mate totally crushed any chance of attracting people to vote libertarian. Hell, even attracting libertarians to vote libertarian.

          1. Which is not her fault by any measure, I really don’t understand how the LP even considered him a choice in the first place. Cohen epitomizes why people don’t take libertarians seriously.

            1. Yeah, I agree. If Team L wants to get serious, they need to field candidates who are serious and not some caricature.

        2. Aren’t you in NJ?
          Vote Trump.
          Barring massive vote fraud, I think he has a chance there

          1. Never vote Trump. He is a traitor.

            1. A Russian double agent!

          2. Yes Nardz, I am in the People’s Republic of NJ. Look, I don’t want to burst any bubbles, but The Donald is not going to win NJ. The People’s Republic of NJ is the epitome of a blue state. I live in a place completely surrounded by Libtards and Progtards. The new ‘in’ thing is to have your nice Black Lives Matter sign in your neatly, manicured lawn. Total virtue signaling.

            The math. There are 700K more registered Team D voters than Team R voters. There are for sure a couple hundred thousand more dead voters who will come to life, if needed. The political environment. The Duma (what passes as a legislature) is all Team D. The whole lot of them are literally a rubber-stamp for our Governor, Phailing Phil Murphy. More broadly, we are corrupt AF.

            If I thought The Donald had a chance, I could be persuaded. Note I have not voted Team R in a long, long time. The last Team R POTUS I voted for was Bush 41. I thought he was right when he compared himself to Slick Willie: Character Counts.

    5. If/when he backs out of the debate, Trump should still show up. And he should bring Tom Shillue as a stand-in for Biden.

    6. If he tries to weasel out, Trump should just stage his own debates with an empty podium, and have recordings of Biden speeches to answer questions about the issues.

  7. Great. Another deadly viral pneumonia outbreak.

    What are the chances it stays in Kazakhstan?

    1. They think it is just the kung flu. I think that is likely the case. But who knows. If it is a new pandemic, then people are just going to have to suck it up and take the chance of dying because there will be no other choice.

      1. The science and decision making around same have gotten so politicized, would you believe, e.g., Fauci if he claimed this was a mutated COVID, and we needed to shut everything down again? I wouldn’t. They’ve cried “Wolf!”, way too long after it was obviously unnecessary.

        More questions. Did this bug originate in Kazakhstan or somewhere else? What kind of virus is it? Just how much deadlier, if it is at all, than SARS-CoV2? Do we smack a hard travel ban on anyone who’s been to Kazakhstan in the last 14 days?

        1. Or we cold just nuke ’em.

        2. All 6 of them.

        3. It’s likely it was indeed fabricated in China and probably was to ‘thin out’ parts of their population. China didn’t even tell the WHO.

          All kinds of red flags.

          China is one nasty, communist regime.

    2. What are the chances that governments keep finding new pandemics so they won’t have to relinquish the power they have grabbed in their zeal to act like they are protecting us?

      1. Ima say “certainty”.

      2. “Chances of powermongering: 100%.”

        1. Political forcast: Power-mongering with a chance of totalitarianism.

      3. What are the chances that they start doing more than just “finding” them?

      4. The masks mandates may seem innocuous but are in fact a very troubling sign. It’s not rooted in sound science for the most part.

        Think of one small example by using deductive reasoning. If you scientific literature about how masks work, you realize it’s an intimate manufacturing process. It has to adhere to the laws of science since it’s dealing with particles.

        Yet, now we have nouveau-entrepreneurs and seamstresses churning out cloth masks as if they’re works of science. No quality control of any kind. Just put a sock on your face, state your political stance and TA-DAH! You saved lives.

        Hello. McFly!

        This is where we’re at in the 2020 timeline. Which puts it around the year 706 AD? Thereabouts?

        1. Yeah, we’re pretty much back to the thinking of disease caused by malicious spells cast by evil people. The narrative now tells us that people without masks want others (the innocents) to die.

          1. The entire narrative of the left is Biblical, complete with original sin and atonement.

        2. Please use the correct scientific terms: The experts at the CDC specify “cloth face coverings” as the proper term, and specifically state that they ARE NOT “masks”.

      5. What are the chances that somewhere there are government labs working on viruses
        customized to target whole nations by their common DNA?

        1. 1000 percent? Much easier to use such a thing against a more genetically homogeneous population. Like the Han are, I imagine.

        2. Not much room for error!

          Way too risky, not unlike poison gas that often blew back on those who released it.

  8. The ruling could have huge implications for criminal convictions in Oklahoma and other states, Chief Justice John Roberts warned in a dissent.

    Not your concern.

    1. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/385991/

      The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

      Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

      In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

      My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

      Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

      The authors don’t say how I misused their work. Instead, they attribute to me a position I have never taken: that the “probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans.” To the contrary, I have, like them, stressed that racial disparities in policing reflect differences in violent crime rates. The only thing wrong with their article, and my citation of it, is that its conclusion is unacceptable in our current political climate.

      They fired the head of research at Michigan State because he promoted entirely validated and peer reviewed research that showed a fact, that black people are not shot by police any more often than whites, that leftist politics doesn’t want known.

      That is straight up totalitarian bullshit. The left has gone full on insane.

      1. It’s not like the example of Lysenko wasn’t there for everyone to see. Nor, after 25 plus years of global warming hysteria, was this sort of behavior in academia criminology going to be unexpected.

        Pretty funny that they’re disavowing such recent scholarship because the powers that be didn’t like it, rather than because the research was flawed.

      2. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account

        “Well, there’s your problem!”

      3. Open wider, John.

        1. Yes, you stand for the forces of ignorance. We know that. Since you are ignorant, you want everyone ignorant.

          1. No, the Rev stands for the forces of rigid puritanical ideology, who wish to impose a utopian future guided by revealed holy truths. Thinking, and certainly dissension, are heresy and will not be tolerated.

        2. You’re schtick is pretty boring, but the fact that you are acting like hiding studies because they don’t fit the narrative is a good thing for anyone says so much about the “party of science”.

        3. So what is it like being an animal rather than a human being Rev? IS it confusing?

          Actually, animals are lovely creatures who bring joy and value to the world. So, it is not fair to call you an animal. I guess, creature would be a better word. Whatever it is, you certainly do not qualify as any kind of a human being.

      4. You know, John, maybe you should actually discover what the full story is before you go off on one of your little tirades.

        The problem is encapsulated by your own statement:

        They fired the head of research at Michigan State because he promoted entirely validated and peer reviewed research that showed a fact, that black people are not shot by police any more often than whites, that leftist politics doesn’t want known.

        That is NOT what the study claimed to find, but that is precisely how it is being deliberately misinterpreted in order to further a narrative.

        Here is how the authors of the study corrected their work:

        The authors wish to note the following: “Recently, we published a report showing that, among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities (1). Specifically, we estimated the probability that a civilian was Black, Hispanic, or White given that a person was fatally shot and some covariates. The dataset contains only information about individuals fatally shot by police, and the race of the individual is predicted by a set of variables. Thus, we compute Pr(race|shot, X) where X is a set of variables including officer race.

        “Although we were clear about the quantity we estimated and provide justification for calculating Pr(race|shot, X) in our report (see also 2, 3), we want to correct a sentence in our significance statement that has been quoted by others stating ‘White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.’ This sentence refers to estimating Pr(shot|race, X). As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.

        “We appreciate the feedback that led us to clarify this sentence (4). To be clear, this issue does not invalidate the findings with regards to Pr(race|shot, X) discussed in the report.”

        https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127

        Did Ms. MacDonald mention this correction? Did you? No, you abused the scientific literature in order to further your own right-wing politics.

        1. And why did they correct it baby Jeffrey? Here is a hint. They didnt correct it. They changed their underlying narrative due to pressure of being canceled.

          I’m not shocked you support this type of behavior, you clamor for it often.

          1. They didnt correct it. They changed their underlying narrative due to pressure of being canceled.

            That would be an interesting experiment in time travel, since the correction occurred in April, but Ms. MacDonald’s op-ed was published in June.

            The authors corrected their article because they received legitimate criticism from other researchers in the field questioning their methodology. Maybe you should actually read the article.

            1. To be clear, this issue does not invalidate the findings with regards to Pr(race|shot, X) discussed in the report.”

              Maybe you should learn to read.

          2. You guys need to stop reading PJ Media. It is absolute partisan rage fuel click bait trash. It is rotting your brains.

        2. And here comes jeff to stan for progs and cancel culture again.

      5. Theyve been insane for decades. We are just nearing their first end game of their long march.

        The utilization of post modernism and conflict theory as a basis for education is quite alarming and has been for at least 2 decades.

      6. And weren’t you just yesterday claiming that universities are leftist indoctrination centers anyway? Wasn’t this study put out by members of one of those ‘leftist indoctrination centers’? Why are you putting any credence in to what they are saying on any subject? Oh right because you’re suffering from confirmation bias.

        When they say something you like, then it validates your convictions.
        When they say something you don’t like, then you impugn their integrity.

        1. And the famous jeffrey dishonesty.

          When someone says universities indoctrinate it doesnt imply there is nothing useful in universities. Until the last couple of years hard sciences and engineering have been buffered from the crap coming from the conflict theory instruction.

          This has begun to change with the math is racist, correct answers are racist, time is racist, conflict theory bullshir coming out, but it doesnt mean nothing good comes from universities.

          That is a claim you made and only you made as a strawman argument.

          You’re also fat.

          1. I see. So universities are “indoctrination centers”, but not entirely so, and in order to know if a product from a university is legit, or “indoctrination”, the standard to be used is…. one’s own personal bias. Thanks for restating what I already said.

            1. Hahaha you’re just mad because you’re fat.

            2. I see. So universities are “indoctrination centers”, but not entirely so

              Nuance is difficult for jeff so he rages against it.

              1. He’s an amazing combination of stupidity and dishonesty.

        2. I think this episode proves him right

    2. Remember when SCOTUS attempted to make decisions based on the law? Good times.

  9. The crime jurisdictional issues from McGirt, strike me as less important than the property issues. If the Tribes were wrongfully disestablished in 1907, then didn’t they retain lawful title to the land and mineral rights on their reservation? And if so, aren’t all subsequent conveyances of that real property wrongful?

    It looks like Cushing, OK, may be just inside the line of Tribal Territory. Cushing is one of THE Hubs for oil and gas distribution in this country. It’s not small. Do the producers, pipeline guys, distributors—everyone upstream and downstream to the consumer—owe 113 years of back rents/pipeline fees/royalties to the Tribes?

    What a gigantic can of worms that stupid fuck decided to open.

    1. Also taxes. Oklahoma’s apparently been illegally gathering taxes for over a century, so are they going to give all that money back? But you’re right, did 1.8 million people just lose ownership of their own homes? They did lose representation since they’re no longer part of the state.

      1. IANAL. Can non-NA own or lease property on the reservation? Does it need Tribal approval first, if it is possible?

        Laches was sitting right there for the Supreme Court to pick up, and they refused to do it. The idea that, maybe disestablishment was wrongful, but the time to bitch about it was a hell of a lot closer to the wrongful act than 110 some odd years later. The Tribes acted by their subsequent conduct that they were resigned to the situation. Why not reiterate that the original act was wrong, but the Tribes ratified it over the intervening time, so go pound sand?

        Or simply not take the case at all, and let the raper of 4 year olds rot in a OK state prison. OK state courts all rejected this guy’s bullshit argument, yet the Supreme Court decided to turn it into a successful Hail Mary. Why?

        1. Because the liberals are nuts and Goresuch is just an asshole drunk on power. That is the only thing I can figure.

        2. They had to take it because while the state courts shot it down, the circuit court said it was ok. So the SC had to weigh in. I really don’t know what Gorsuch was thinking.

          1. Huh? The opinion says it came up on cert from the CCA of Oklahoma, and SCOTUS reversed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-9526
            It doesn’t mention the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals at all.

            1. They do mention the Tenth chiming in that the lands were still part of a reservation. From the opinion:

              While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Murphy v. Royal, 875 F. 3d 896, 907–909, 966 (2017).

              Sounds like the sort of thing that could’ve been rejected per curiam, rather than the Tenth getting upheld in part on that question.

              1. ok. I saw Reason saying that the 10th had gone the other way and figured that they had gotten involved before the SC had jumped in

    2. The crime jurisdictional issues from McGirt, strike me as less important than the property issues. If the Tribes were wrongfully disestablished in 1907, then didn’t they retain lawful title to the land and mineral rights on their reservation? And if so, aren’t all subsequent conveyances of that real property wrongful?

      Gorsuch just clouded the title of every land owner in the eastern half of Oklahoma. At some point a technical reading of the law because so insane and damaging that if can’t be read that way. This is one of those times. Goresuch being an intellectual, doesn’t understand that. The land owners totally fucked by this are not his concern. It is their job to suffer for Goresuch’s principles.

      The contrast between this decision and its absolute literal reading of the law with his decision declaring Title IX covers gays could not be greater. When it came to gays and tranny’s Goresuch was all about torturing the text for it’s “real meaning”. When it came to fucking the landowners of Eastern Oklahoma, he suddenly decided that the law meant what it said and could mean nothing else.

      In two weeks, he went from being one of the better Justices in the last 100 years to being a complete lose cannon results driven tyrant. Who the fuck knows what he is going to rule on a given case. Basically, it comes down to whatever he personally likes.

      1. I don’t doubt the Indians got fucked way back when. From those lands, they were supposed to get their own State out of the deal—‘Sequoyah’, IIRC—until Teddy Roosevelt put the kibosh on it. But the time to bitch about that in court was wayyyyy before 100 plus years had passed.

        Did the stupid ass not hear about principles of legal equity when he was in law school? Which leads to me to wonder again why they took this case.

        1. Me too. It makes me wonder about his stability and fitness for the bench. You don’t make decisions that cause this much chaos. And all for what? To let a guy who murdered and raped a child get out of his conviction. It would be one thing if this were the tribes suing. That would have been bad enough. But this was a criminal case involving a complete fucking monster. So, the Court decided that they would put every land title in half the state of Oklahoma in jeopardy to do the good deed of letting a monster guilty of the most despicable crime out of prison. Way to go.

          1. So contracts are null and void if you just don’t like their implications anymore?

            This is what courts should do; force the legislature to fix their own fuck ups. If Congress’ deal with the tribe is so damaging they should work out a new one, not just ignore it and pretend they never made a deal in the first place.

            And you’re completely ignoring all of the injustice that led to the deal in the first place. OK homeowners are getting screwed by the deal, so did the Natives that got forcibly relocated by the government in the first place.

            1. OK homeowners are getting screwed by the deal, so did the Natives that got forcibly relocated by the government in the first place.

              I’m not sure if you’re familiar with American history, but Natives were forcibly relocated for approximately 300 years until the entire land mass of the United States had been conquered. That’s what the whole “right of conquest” means, and it’s been practiced by humanity for its entire existence.

              If we’re going to go with the argument that the Natives suffered a “massive injustice” by broken treaties and conquest, then logically every person who’s not of full-blooded Native ancestry should fuck off back to Europe, since that’s how the lands were taken in the first place.

              Arguing that half of eastern Oklahoma is actually tribal land, and the courts have no means to put a child molester in jail because of that, is insanity on a whole different level.

              1. I should add that this applies to black residents of the US as well, since their ancestors participated in said conquest after the Civil War.

              2. Let’s not forget that the tribes innocent victims in this. The reason there wasn’t any colonies in NA proper in the hundred+ years between Columbus and Jamestown is that the natives would either wipe out any settlement attempts or surround and starve them out. During the revolutionary war, most tribes (such as the Seminoles, the Miami, the Cherokee, the Shawnee, and half of the Iroquois) chose to fight for the British.

                Cue the Civil War, and again, the majority of the tribes sided with the Confederates, including the Cherokee and the Seminoles, tribes that were in Oklahoma. You don’t think that these actions had an effect on US policy? That the US treated them with hostility because they were hostile? The US isn’t blameless by any means, but the First Nations chose to play the game and lost.

                1. The whole “Confederacy was a bunch of losers and we shouldn’t be glorifying them” shows how ignorant and ahistorical the left has become. Now, there weren’t a lot of tribes that sided with the Confederacy, but the fact remains that tribes in Oklahoma DID actually fight as Confederate units, and the Lincoln administration DID fight a war against the Dakota during the same time frame that pushed them out of Minnesota. The Sand Creek massacre and the Long Walk of the Navajo took place during the same period.

                  Yes, I can’t imagine why tribes in Oklahoma would be motivated to take up arms against the United States and seek to break off from it by siding with a slave-holding oligarchic society attempting to secede from said United States. It’s a complete fucking mystery.

                  1. Almost as if they enjoyed owning slaves themselves or something. Who knows.

              3. This has nothing to do with whether stealing lands from the Native Americans was justified or not. It has to do with following our own damn laws. The Federal Government wrote and signed a treaty. It has made the laws and it must obey those laws. If the US wants to “Alter the terms of our agreement” with the Native Americans then congress needs to get off its ass and do so.

                The SCOTUS didn’t rule on the propriety of taking these peoples’ lands. They ruled that once we set those takings in law, we needed to follow that law. What is there to disagree with there?

                1. And by that logic, every person whose not of full-blooded Native ancestry needs to fuck off back to Europe, Asia, or Africa, since they’re technically living on land that stolen by broken treaties.

                  1. If we’re going to use “rule of law” as a cudgel, then technically speaking the US should dissolve immediately since it was literally built on a foundation of broken treaties and violent conquest.

                    1. I had a longer comment that got ‘et, so I’ll just briefly hypothesize that their purpose in taking this case was to lay groundwork for preserving a very old cause of action against the states, that belongs to a historic minority. Regardless of equitable principles that would normally bar such a consideration.

                      I think SCOTUS is trying to take baby steps towards recognizing a judicial remedy that will satisfy calls for reparations due African-Americans from slavery.

              4. Well, they got the land by force of arms, and lost the land to force of arms, so procedures were followed.

                vade ad victor spolia

              5. The population that descends generally from english/France have spent the last 150 years groveling about how sorry they are for what previous generations did. The Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese just said “yeah we genocide them good” and moved on

            2. Contracts get modified by courts all of the time by equitable concerns. Adverse possession of real property is probably the most known.

              As to the Indians getting screwed, and I agree, they were, they were a set of sovereign entities that lost their fight with another sovereign. That sort of thing happens, and when it does, the answer is usually to go pound sand.

              The US, rather magnanimously, allows a mechanism for redress. The Tribes could have sued, and perhaps they did. If they did, the matter was settled against them; if they didn’t, it’s too late to start now. Or it would be, if Gorsuch and others in the federal judiciary had the slightest idea about how their decisions have ramifications that go way beyond the litigants or even the class of people the litigants represent.

              1. The Sioux sued over the Black HIlls in the 1970s and the SCOTUS awarded them several hundred million dollars. They didn’t give the land back. Same here. If the tribes want to sue and get compensation, they should. But you don’t let a child murderer walk and create total economic chaos as a solution to this.

                1. He’s not walking. His state conviction may be voided, but the US Attorney for that part of Oklahoma doesn’t have a hair on her balls if she didn’t already have an arrest warrant for murder drawn up for the kiddie diddling piece of shit. No SoL for murder.

                  Yeah, they probably have to retry him though.

            3. And you’re completely ignoring all of the injustice

              Ohnooooooes!

              We are deciding cases based on percieved injustices now I guess.

          2. Yeah, at some point you just have to say the past is the past. The Indians totally got fucked. But that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to fuck everyone else in OK who never did anything wrong. Every piece of land got stolen from someone at some point.

      2. At some point a technical reading of the law because so insane and damaging that if can’t be read that way.

        Rule of law.

        1. If the law said half the population were to be murdered, would you apply that as written? There are limits to the principle “rule of law” just like every other principle. At some point the real world implications of a principle become so grave that it must be abandoned in that case. Where that point is is of course very difficult to determine and highly debatable. But, that is why life is really hard and people who imagine that it can be navigated by principles alone really stupid.

          1. I guess the Anglo legal framework of Courts of Law and Courts of Equity wasn’t widely publicized in college. Though even at the land grant, cow and silage commuter school I went to, I learned it as part of English history.

            The Law can’t cover every situation. Which is where things like equitable principles come in.

            1. I think if you went to college any time after about 1985, the land grant, cow and silage schools were about the only places you could get a decent education. I work with and know any number of people who went to elite schools and none of them got an actual education worth anything and this is especially true when it comes to the liberal arts and history and philosophy in particular.

              1. I gotta mostly agree on this. Especially since we’re seeing a large number of Antifa leaders are TEACHERS, especially in the western states. The school system needs to be cleaned out as badly as the media and political classes right now.

                1. More so. The school system is what gave us those classes as they are.

          2. If the law said half the population were to be murdered, would you apply that as written?

            I would not because I know that the rule of law is a myth.

      3. “The land owners totally fucked by this are not his concern. It is their job to suffer for Goresuch’s principles.”

        This is exactly why you get title insurance, though.

        I feel for the land owners, but if they had no right to buy that land, they have no right to it. It sucks, but we are a nation of laws.

        There will have to be a settlement here, and possibly some sort of congressional response.

        I know it is easy to hate on Gorsuch, but at the end of the day, this is like that water stain you see in your wall that you know you ought to get looked at, but put off. Again and again, you put it off, until one day you just have to do something. You don’t blame the guy who uncovers that an entire side of your house is rotted out. You blame the person who put off fixing it.

        1. “There will have to be a settlement here, and possibly some sort of congressional response.”

          And that is the substantive response to you John. I mean that I prefer Gorsuch to say “This is the fucking law”. And now the legislative and Executive branches need to work out a settlement that amounts to a “Soft Landing” for all the impacted people.

          The First Nations don’t want this to turn into a shooting war any more than the gov’t of OK.

          1. I could respect that, if Gorsuch had not done the exact opposite in the Title IX decision. There, rather than say this is the law live with it and have Congress fix it if you don’t like it, he read his own preferences and desired results into the text where they were clearly never intended by Congress. So when you look at the two decisions together, it is hard to have any respect for his legal mind at all.

        2. This is exactly why you get title insurance, though.

          That is like saying it is okay for me to break your window because insurance covers it. Also, I doubt a title insurance policy would cover this. This is a cloud on the title that wasn’t legally recognized when they issued the policy. I can’t see how they can be expected to cover something that they had no legal notice existed. Even if it does, them having to pay for the chaos doesn’t make the creating the chaos any more justified.

          There will have to be a settlement here, and possibly some sort of congressional response.

          Maybe but there is nothing to say there will be. And the ability of Congress to maybe clean it up doesn’t make the decision any less insane.

          1. “That is like saying it is okay for me to break your window because insurance covers it.”

            No. The government broke your window, not you. The whole point of title insurance is to ensure that you are made whole if something like this happens where we discover that some right of succession was broken by some other legal issue. Now, in this case it is like a hurricane and I am sure a lot of title insurance companies are going to flip their lids. Which will force this to be unwound through some mix of negotiation.

            “Maybe but there is nothing to say there will be. And the ability of Congress to maybe clean it up doesn’t make the decision any less insane.”

            See this is where I disagree. The decision was actually very sane. The circumstances leading up to this are insane. It is insane that a state government plainly ignored a federal treaty, that the federal government showed no interest in enforcing it. I do not find it insane that a bunch of native americans decided not to fight this system.

            Trying to side step around this cleverly would have resulted in some sort of “Penal-tax” perversion of the law. For what? To avoid looking unprincipled while lacking principles. THAT is insane.

            This decision is the first thing to return us to some sort of insanity. Accept the basic principles and then start unwinding things from there.

            1. No. The government broke your window, not you. The whole point of title insurance is to ensure that you are made whole if something like this happens where we discover that some right of succession was broken by some other legal issue. Now, in this case it is like a hurricane and I am sure a lot of title insurance companies are going to flip their lids. Which will force this to be unwound through some mix of negotiation.

              That doesn’t make the harm okay or not exist. The window is broken. Who pays for it doesn’t make it less broken or the world any less poor for it having been broken. So, hey the taxpayers and the Congress will take care of this doesn’t make it okay. And as I explained, there is no way a title company can be expected to insure for a legal claim that was not recognized at the time of the issuing of the policy. If you do that, you are screwing the insurance companies just as badly as the feds screwed the Indians.

              See this is where I disagree. The decision was actually very sane. The circumstances leading up to this are insane. It is insane that a state government plainly ignored a federal treaty, that the federal government showed no interest in enforcing it. I do not find it insane that a bunch of native americans decided not to fight this system.

              This decision makes court an accessory to all of that chaos. It is only occurring because they allowed it to occur. Moreover, if you want the Indian tribes to get a payoff, go to Congress and get them to do it. You don’t pull this decision out of your ass in hopes of forcing it. It is judicial tyranny.

              1. “And as I explained, there is no way a title company can be expected to insure for a legal claim that was not recognized at the time of the issuing of the policy. If you do that, you are screwing the insurance companies just as badly as the feds screwed the Indians.”

                1) It isn’t the title company. It is title insurance.

                2) Their entire reason for existing is to handle exactly this scenario. Specifically, “Hey that guy who sold you this land? He actually didn’t have the right to sell it to you and so now you have no property and no money.” Usually the reason why these claims come up is because someone had a lien on their property. But there have also been cases where the land was mistakenly written off, or improperly surveyed. In all these cases, the first thing to happen is the court ruling that the land wasn’t legally owned by the seller.

                “You don’t pull this decision out of your ass in hopes of forcing it. It is judicial tyranny.”

                The hell it is. Tyranny was the federal government agreeing to a treaty and then failing to live up to that treaty while a local government stole it from you. That is the tyranny. A judge pointing out that it was tyranny is the first step in fixing that tyranny.

                A whole bunch of stuff that is very wrong about our country will be HUGELY disruptive to fix. For example eliminating the SALT deduction entirely or removing the tax deduction for houses. Stopping the federal funding of medicare and Social Security. Hell, pulling out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all going to cause a huge amount of chaos and strife- probably more than will be experienced unwinding this catastrophe. Shrug. It still needs to happen.

        3. I believe that after 21 years the people who are on the land without being asked to leave get squatters’ rights, I.e. ownership by adverse possession.

      4. “At some point a technical reading of the law because so insane and damaging that if can’t be read that way”

        Ummm no thanks. There is no point where SCOTUS should disregard the law and make a decision based on reaching a desired outcome. You are reasoning like a progressive again.

        1. No I am reasoning like someone who isn’t a fanatic. Again, if the law said “everyone in Oklahoma should be sterilized” would you expect that to be applied in the name of the rule of law? If you would, you are a fanatic. If you wouldn’t, then you just conceded my point and we are arguing about degrees not principles.

          Come back when you have developed more intellectual maturity than an earnest 8th grader.

          1. Hurts to be called out on your double standard.

            1. John is illustrating perfectly the concept of privilege that he implicitly endorses. Crimes committed by minority groups are supposedly evidence AGAINST systematic racism. “Do racist cops force blacks to kill each other? No? Then STFU, BLM!” But when a gigantic crime committed by the majority group – the state reneging on its treaties with Native Americans – is committed, John sees that crime as something that the majority group should be allowed to get away with, because the implications are just too overwhelming otherwise.

              Small crimes committed by THEM are “big problems”.
              Big crimes committed by ME are “no big deal”.
              That’s John in a nutshell.

              1. What a surprise that chemjeff is standing up for a child molester.

                1. What a surprise that you’re just trolling me as usual.

                  1. chemtard is breaking out the “trolling” complaint, so I know I’ve hit a nerve.

                    1. You were.

                    2. Hitting a nerve? You betcha.

              2. chemjeff radical individualist
                July.10.2020 at 11:09 am
                John is illustrating perfectly the concept of privilege

                Jeff, constantly stans for progs and their arguments, but totally not a prog.

                Lol

          2. You keep bringing up these absurd and irrelevant hypotheticals. The reason why a ridiculous law like “everyone should be sterilized” should not be enforced, is because that law tramples on an individual’s natural rights, which is a higher principle. What is the higher principle involved here, John? “Stolen land should not be returned to its rightful owners because… it would be a big inconvenience?” Is that what you are going with?

            1. There is nothing absurd or irrelevant about it. The claim is that it doesn’t matter how much chaos and harm this creates, the law must be applied. If that is true, then it is true in the case of forced sterilizations just as much as it is true here. If it is not true in the case of forced sterilizations, then the rule of law isn’t always paramount. In some cases the harm is so bad it can’t be applied. And that is my entire point. Now if you want to claim that this harm isn’t bad enough to justify ignoring the rule of law, that is a sensible point. I don’t agree with it, but it is at least a sensible point that can be argued.

              What you are saying is not. All you are saying here is that you like the result. Your point is not a sensible response nor is it worthy of engagement. The only response to it is to try once again to explain to you how logic and rationality work and hope this time it takes.

              You just don’t understand what is going on Jeff and I am skeptical you have the intelligence to ever understand.

              1. John is breaking out the insults, so I know I’ve hit a nerve.

                Re-read what I wrote, John, and try responding to that, instead of writing more tiresome insults.

                The reason why a ridiculous law like “everyone should be sterilized” should not be enforced, is because that law tramples on an individual’s natural rights, which is a higher principle.

                What is the higher principle in this case, John, that justifies ignoring the rule of law? You sure seem to be saying that “too much chaos” is enough of a higher principle to justify ignoring the rule of law. That the implicit purpose of the law should be to maintain the status quo even if that status quo was arrived at through illegal means. If that is what you mean, then say so plainly.

                1. The reason why a ridiculous law like “everyone should be sterilized” should not be enforced, is because that law tramples on an individual’s natural rights, which is a higher principle.

                  And the land ownership of the people who bought their land in good faith isn’t? And justice for a murderer isn’t a “higher principle”.

                  And this has nothing to do with anyone individual rights except for the murderers. The indians who lost their land are long dead and can never be compensated. And the tribes at best have a collective property interest but not any kind of freedom interest in it and certainly no more or less compelling an interest than the people who have purchased their land honestly thinking they had clear title, which they indeed they did until today. The home owner in Tulsa never stole anyone’s land. But you are such a degenerate moron, you think that he is somehow supposed to give up what he paid for lawfully to make up for a theft committed by people who no longer live against people who no longer are alive.

                  Stop appealing to principles and concepts you don’t understand. And yes, you will be personally insulted. You deserve it. You are stupid and dishonest and deserving of nothing but contempt. If you don’t like that, get smarter and stop lying.

                  1. Contracts for the sale of stolen property can’t be enforced because the seller did not have legal ownership of the property. Don’t you know that, Mr. Lawyer? Your argument still boils down to “it would be too inconvenient to right the wrongs of the past”.

                    It is not even that you are expecting Native Americans to suffer for your principles. You are expecting Native Americans to suffer merely for your convenience.

                    I don’t expect that there will be mass evictions in Tulsa. I think that there can be some equitable agreement worked out. Recognizing the injustice is a separate issue from correcting the injustice.

                    And yes, you will be personally insulted.

                    I’ve noticed that you tend to break out the insults when you are losing an argument. Funny that.

                    1. Jeff, when will you be paying your reparations?

                    2. Your argument still boils down to “it would be too inconvenient to right the wrongs of the past”.

                      Which actually is a cogent legal argument, unlike yours.

                    3. Funny you mention that, Nardz. I think this case was taken precisely to help lay the groundwork for the Feds saying reparations need to be paid to blacks.

                    4. Irish need not apply. Chinese not welcome. Etc.

                      It will cost an infinite amount to pay all the reparations due.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist
              July.10.2020 at 11:01 am
              You keep bringing up these absurd and irrelevant hypotheticals

              Oh ok you’re mad that hes stealing your moves.

      5. I assume Congress would officially break the treaty before it ever got to mass evictions.

  10. ECONOMIC DISASTER!!!!!!!!!

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch has fallen out of the top 20 richest people on the planet!

    His pathetic $51.0 billion net worth only puts him in 21st place. This is completely unacceptable.

    Open. The. Borders. NOW!!!!!!

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?
    #50BillionIsntEnough

  11. What’s really killing me is how Oklahoma isn’t bigger news right now. I told my dad about it last night and he hadn’t heard a thing! Most people have no idea this happened!

    1. Oh, once the “protests” start it’ll be news. 8-(

      1. The supreme court has made their decision now let’s see them enforce it? Somehow I don’t see Trump backing this decision, and if he isn’t going to send in the troops, then there’s not a lot the reservation cops are going to be able to do against 1.8 million angry people. I just told my coworker who lives in Tulsa about this, and she thought I was joking, she hadn’t heard a thing

        1. Cool! Now don’t ever make a comment here where you appeal to rule of law.

          1. You and yours have decided that rule of law doesn’t apply to people who have the “proper” politics. Why the fuck would we listen to you, Klan boy?

            1. Who are “mine”? What have I decided?

              1. Ah now youre pretending you havent been posting here.

                1. That was a non-answer.

    2. What pisses me off about the OK story, besides the things I mentioned above, are the smug legal ‘experts’ who start chiming in with, “This is only applicable to criminal jurisdiction issues.” Which is bad enough.

      Gorsuch does say that in his opinion. But you can’t take his stated reason for ruling the way he did—the Territory and State of Oklahoma did not have the power to disestablish the Tribes’ Reservations—and have that reason only apply to criminal jurisdiction. It doesn’t work that way. (Unless appellate reasoning in this country has gone Full Mad Red Queen, and then fuck it, nothing means anything anymore.)

      If the Reservations were wrongfully terminated, they would still retain title to any property they possessed. As John put it above, every land or mineral interest owner in Eastern Oklahoma just got their title clouded. It’s an inescapable conclusion from his opinion.

      1. and you can be sure that the people currently living there aren’t going to accept “oh, your title’s worthless and don’t expect any financial compensation either”.

        1. The more I think about it, it’s just a shakedown. The Tribes are going to end up ratifying all subsequent title transfers since deestablishment. But they’re not going to do it without a check from the O&G industry with a vapor trail of zeroes on it. At least in my limited experience dealing with Natives (in New Mexico), I’ve found them laconic, with a deadpan sense of humor, and extremely pragmatic. It’s all negotiable.

          Criminal law-wise, going forward, I’m guessing there will be quite a few new jobs opening in the federal justice system in Eastern Oklahoma, but I have no idea how you handle the past convictions problem. On its face, the opinion says Oklahoma couldn’t try Natives on that giant chunk of land in State Court. Do you let go, all of the Natives in the pen that this applies to? Do you have to retry them in Federal Court? Have the various statutes of limitations tolled for these guys?

          What a mess.

      2. “What pisses me off about the OK story, besides the things I mentioned above, are the smug legal ‘experts’ who start chiming in with, “This is only applicable to criminal jurisdiction issues.” Which is bad enough.”

        How dare those legal experts make predictions when we non-legal experts can make our own, amiright?

        The reason why this isn’t settled for property rights is that there are a LOT of additional precedents that come in when you start dealing with property. Squatters rights. Improvements Rights. These things will all have to be unwound, so it is highly likely that this will take years to be settled.

        On the government side, there are additional questions around the jurisdiction to tax. And I’m fine with that. If Oklahoma illegally annexed land then fuck them. Governments should be held to account for that shit under all circumstances, whether it is annexing land from individuals or from other entities.

        1. Because it’s a poorly reasoned opinion, Overt, that completely ignores a bald faced implication from the holding. It’s not a subtle point to read that opinion and realize that a hundred years of land transactions in Eastern Oklahoma just got covered in mud. ‘Legal experts’ would know this, and know that Gorsuch’s statement in the opinion that this only applies to a subset of criminal jurisdiction, is gauze thin.

          1. The point is that it won’t immediately result in anyone seizing anyones’ land. It will go to arbitration and court if congress doesn’t intervene to adjust things.

            I cannot believe that conservatives are lining up on the other side of this. If we don’t hold the federal and state accountable to their own rules, then we should not be surprised when they decide to abandon them all together.

            1. It means any landowner in Eastern Oklahoma—right now—won’t be able to sell their property until this is dealt with. Which I believe you admitted might take years. God only knows how the O&G industry is going to partition out the royalties. Or deal with mineral leases.

              People who have been living on this land for over 100 years, who bought in good faith and have done nothing wrong, are getting screwed to satisfy some lingering sense of guilt. When the Tribes in question at the time, and for a hundred years thereafter, did not sue the Federal government to prevent the taking. And to lay the foundation for the Supreme Court to take it on themselves to judicially redress the failure of Reconstruction America to fulfill its compensation promises to freed African-Americans.

              How sure are you, personally, that the land you own, won’t be found by some court five-ten years from now to have been wrongfully taken from some group a hundred years ago, and now you either owe compensation or need to vacate?

              Gorsuch—despite my hail of invective earlier—isn’t an idiot. He had to know what the fallout from crafting this opinion, this way, was going to be.

              1. Turns out the people in charge were already on top of this and are pretty reasonable.

                http://www.choctawnation.com/mcgirt-vs-oklahoma?fbclid=IwAR2EQgSRLiH49lEA3ZZEarvl08GjrQCSFtzffsP9lgFezTdoegh2CjiDTHs

                “Does this decision mean non-Natives no longer own their homes or other property if they live within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation?

                No. Today’s decision has no effect whatsoever on anyone’s ownership of property, and all existing contracts, leases, and title to property remain as they were before this decision. State law remains applicable for the most part especially with respect to persons who are not members of the Choctaw Nation (or another tribe) and on lands not owned by the tribe or tribal members.”

                There’s gonna be some things to work out in regards taxation and probably a few other items but for the most part life goes on the same as it ever was.

  12. So reason is now the voice of the far left who want to give it all back to the natives. Fuck you. Libertarian my ass.

    Notice how enb manages one single quote from Roberts and ignores his entire argument. That is how the social justice crowd debates by cherry picking quotes and facts.

    1. Wow, ENB did a straight, factual reporting on an important Supreme Court decision. And because you don’t like the decision, the messenger is now “the voice of the far left”.

      1. Which is true so one wonders why youre crying about it so much.

    2. “So reason is now the voice of the far left who want to give it all back to the natives.”

      The fucking government wrote a treaty with these people giving them the land. It was the GOVERNMENT who “gave it all back”. The state decided to ignore federal law and take that land anyways.

      Last I checked, the Right appreciated property rights. Even when it led to outcomes they didn’t want.

      1. The right is making it clearer by the day that what they actually stand for aren’t timeless concepts like liberty and justice, but for order and stability.

        Monuments should stay, even if they were erected as giant racist “fuck-you”s to black people, because it’s important to ‘preserve history’.

        Broken treaties should be justified, because otherwise it would be “too much chaos”.

        They have no idea how the status quo harms others who are not a part of the majority group, and furthermore they don’t really care. What is important is order and stability for THEMSELVES.

        1. Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.

  13. NEW 66% of public says civilians should have the power to sue police officers

    1 out of 3 people surveyed preferred the taste of boot.

  14. Given that many Indian tribes owned black slaves, what happens when BLM shows up to protest on sovereign tribal land?

    1. Considering the armament and pugnaciousness of your average Eastern Oklahoman Native or redneck, they end up missing.

    2. Is this a scenario that you think is actually going to happen?

      1. One can only hope.

      2. Is this a scenario that you think is actually going to happen?

        Why am I thinking that the only indians you know anything about are the leftist ones from AIM?

        There’s a reason why you see them at colleges and not at powwows.

        1. That made no sense. Tell me why you think it likely a bunch of black protesters are going to bother protesting at an Indian reservation?

  15. Trump’s rally in Tulsa was a bust; nobody there.
    “Trump campaign rally cited in surge of Tulsa virus cases”
    https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jul/09/trump-campaign-rally-cited-in-surge-of-tulsa/?news

    The nationwide protests, OTOH, drew millions, and, according to the wall of silence, didn’t cause the spike in any other cities or states!
    That Trump is AMAZING!

    1. Nobody that poked fun at Trump over the Tulsa rally literally said that there was *nobody* attending. They poked fun at Trump with what actually happened, disappointing attendance.

      You are setting up a straw man, I guess to make yourself feel better?

      1. His argument was clear. Your TDS just clouds your mind from reading comprehension.

        Also, nevermind that attendance was low because the Dems flooded the ticketing system so people couldn’t easily get tickets. Before you deny this, AOC actually bragged about it on Twitter. Of course, I’m sure you missed this new since the MSM didn’t cover it…

        1. Why would I deny that? If it is true, it was a brilliant prank.

      2. Oh my god you’re crying about THIS TOO???

  16. Why do so many women hate themselves? This guy asks the right question but I think misses the mark a bit.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/why-do-so-many-white-women-hate-themselves/

    It is very easy to see why they hate themselves. Only one or at most two percent of the population are actually homosexual, meaning they are sexually attracted exclusively to the same sex. So, that means 98% or more of woman have the biological urge to be with, be accepted by, and mate with men. Feminism has been teaching women that all men are evil, all sex is rape, and the nuclear family is patriarchal oppression. In other words, everything that women instinctively desire is evil and the cause of all the ills in society.

    On top of this, children tend to bond closest with the parent of the opposite sex. Then they go to school and go out in society and feminism teaches these women that the person they love and trust the most and have known from the cradle is evil and their entire home life and childhood were just a patriarchal system designed to oppress and exploit them. Needless to say, every single one of these women have massive daddy issues. How could they not?

    I can’t imagine what it must be like to live in a culture that teaches everything you instinctively desire and the person you have loved and trusted from birth is evil and wrong. It leaves these women completely self loathing and neurotic. The best evidence that this is what is going on is the fact that these women nearly all are from upper middle and upper class families and have lots of formal education. The very class of women who are most exposed to and most expected to adhere to feminism are the ones who are the most self loathing.

    1. See Robin Di Angelo. Something or someone fucked her up good.

      Or maybe she just needs a good one.

      Chick’s a loon.

    2. Good heavens. That entire article is just dripping with patronizing condescension. White women hate themselves because they are being brainwashed a la Patty Hearst? It is just nauseating. Instead of attempting to understand their opponents, they just caricature them.

      1. They are being taught to hate themselves for the reasons I explain. Whether that is “brainwashing” or not is a totally subjective question. The bottom line is modern feminism is totally at odds with what most women are predisposed to desire and tells them those desires are wrong and the root of most of society’s ills. It is not surprising that this would cause women to loath themselves. Also, there is no mechanism in feminism to assuage guilt. There is no concept of forgiveness or redemption. Without that, since no one ever meets up to a standard perfectly, you end up with self loathing.

        1. don’t forget that “woke” guys aren’t attractive to women. The bowing and scraping beta-ness isn’t stimulating (and it’s a reason why in the long run, a lot of those guys are violent towards women – because they’re sexually frustrated and have based their life on a lie that they were told would get them some). Meanwhile, more and more guys who don’t give in to the brainwashing are just writing off marriage altogether, and in some cases relationships. It’s too dangerous when you can get your life destroyed because she got a case of next day guilt. We live in a time when there are plenty of alternatives for sexual release. There’s very little in it for guys who get married, and a whole lot of risk.

      2. No, the article correctly points out the problem with ‘woke’ white women. It is not brainwashing, chem. Simply put, they have weak minds and lack ovarian fortitude.

        1. patronizing condescension

          1. Um….more like calling it like it is, chem.

    3. Not to worry. The Black New Deal, as outlined in the BLM Manifesto will fix this. Ho’s will not have to be confused by the white patriarchal family model. Some will be part of the local tribe harem (but visited by all the alpha males). The rest will be house slaves.

  17. “And the answer given most commonly for why they voted for Donald Trump is “I didn’t vote for Donald Trump. I voted against Hillary Clinton.”

    This is people rationalizing why they did what they did in the past, which doesn’t really tell us anything about why they did what they did. It just tells us how they’re rationalizing it now.

    ” WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

    Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

    —-USA Today September 6, 2003

    https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    Six months after we invaded Iraq, people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11, owing to a number of things including the anthrax attack. That’s how they rationalized the bombing, the invasion, and the occupation. It was a war of self-defense.

    Once it became clear that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, the rationalization for having supported the occupation changed. It became about spreading democracy. Then it became about the insurgents. Then it became about the power vacuum if we left. Then it became about terrorism. Then it became about defeating ISIS.

    People often act first, often for emotional reasons, and rationalize it later, and the reasons they say they did something after the fact often have little to do with the actual reasons they did it. The reason white women voted for Trump wasn’t because Hillary Clinton was a polarizing figure. Donald Trump was even more polarizing. Because Hillary Clinton was polarizing doesn’t explain why white women voted for Trump. That only explains why so many of them stayed home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.

    I suspect one of the reasons Trump’s numbers continue to sag is because for a lot of the electorate, Joe Biden remains an abstraction. They continue to imagine a world with some faceless entity better than Trump, after the debates, the reality will start to sink in that the alternative to President Trump isn’t someone better than Trump. The alternative to President Trump is President Biden. And when pollsters three and a half years later ask them why they voted the way they did, they’ll give them rationalizations based on what’s happened since the vote–just like they’re doing today.

    1. Most people are paying very little attention to the election and won’t until the fall. I have always said that Biden is like a backup quarterback on a losing football team. When a team sucks, the backup qb is often the most popular player because he doesn’t play and people imagine him to be better than he is out of hope. Then of course he plays and 9 times out of 10 it turns out he was a backup because he was worse than the starter.

      Biden is the same way. People imagine him to be a good candidate because they don’t see him and the ones they had were so bad. Once people start paying attention, they will remember how bad Biden actually is. And that is beyond the obvious issues with cognitive decline he is suffering.

      1. I have always said that Biden is like a backup quarterback on a losing football team. When a team sucks, the backup qb is often the most popular player

        Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Trump. But I agree that it’s a very good analogy.

        1. I don’t see how it has anything to do with Trump. Saying the Democrats have a terrible selection of candidates and only think Biden is good because they don’t remember how bad he is, says nothing good or bad about Trump. Trump could be the greatest candidate since Reagan or the worst ever and what I said would still be true.

          1. I read it differently, but I think my reading is also accurate of the reality of election 2020. Biden is the backup quarterback on a losing team and Trump is the starter. Even if Trump is better than Biden, who cares if we can’t win a game? Look at the polls about the direction of the country… justified or not, I think that’s indicating that the people feel like we’re losing a lot lately and want to blame the quarterback.

            I think this is exactly the feeling that would lead former Trump voters toward Biden. Will it hold through November? It’s tough to say. Trump needs to put together a few big wins to erase the memory of all the losses (real or imagined) in 2020.

            1. I don’t know any former Trump voters. So, I could not tell you. I have never met a single person or heard of a single person who voted for Trump who doesn’t plan to do so again. So, I have no idea who these people you are talking about are or any reason to think they exist in significant numbers.

              I would say the country was going great until the Pandemic. And the reason it isn’t now is because of the totalitarian lockdown. It would seem pretty irrational to blame that on Trump when he is the one urging it be ended and Democratic governors are the ones doing everything they can to extend it. And Biden is practically running on it.

              1. Trump’s support in 2016 was extremely enthusiastic.

                Trump’s support in 2020 may be less enthusiastic but I think it’s more widespread.

                Trump has done a good job on a lot of issues.

                1. Every poll I have seen shows that it is more enthusiastic. Republicans are by every measure more enthusiastic now than in 2016.

                2. There’ve been several polls saying Trump’s approval in the black community is low 40s. If that’s true, and it could very well be considering that he did more in 4 years for them then Obama and Clinton combined, then the democrats are done, period. They’ve said themselves they will cease to be nationally viable if they lose more than 20% of the black vote. Add in that you have the far left proggy wing of the party going apeshit and attacking the Biden wing along with everyone else, and you have more people either fleeing the party (the moderates) or refusing to vote for biden (the proggies). Historically, peaceful protests will get you votes and riots will lose you votes. We’ve had a month of riots supported by democrat leaders, while at the same time we’re told we can’t leave our homes unless we’re going out to support the riots. That won’t play well anywhere this shit has been happening.

                  1. It doesn’t play well where it isn’t happening either.

                    If my state wasn’t a foregone conclusion for Trump, I’d be voting for Trump in an attempt to NOT have Team Blue take over. But my state will be at least 65-35 in Trump’s favor, so I can afford a conscience vote for Jorgensen.

                  2. If only Trump’s team will put on good ads to this effect.

                    But I fear he won’t.

              2. It doesn’t matter if the blame is rational or not, the polls tend to say that Americans approval of Trump is trending down since March of this year. This year has sucked by all measures. Whether it’s the quarterback or the offensive line that is responsible for losing may not matter. The fans will clamor for the backup quarterback because the quarterback is the face of the team.

                1. The polls cant be trusted at all at this point. Many of them use a mix of voters closer to Obama’s numbers than Hillarys. And a whole subset of voters refuse to even participate in polling.

                  1. Politico’s also on the record as saying that they haven’t been able to fix what they got wrong in 2016’s polling. Not to mention people voting for Trump have more reason than ever to lie

                    1. And it’s a fucking shame that people feel they have to lie. The current political climate in America is little more than a public witch hunt fro anyone who might even think about voting for Trump. It’s a fucking dumpster fire.

                      Anyone who isn’t steadfast on voting against Trump is a target for destruction by the mob.

                  2. Maybe, but what else do we have to go by? This thing is hardly in the bag for Trump, even though it should be. I read an article that Biden’s camp is ramping up efforts in Iowa right now. Trump won Iowa by 9+ in 2016. If Trump and the Republicans aren’t concerned about the Presidency this year then they are being delusional.

                    Voters have a short memory, like football fans. Our 2020 season has sucked by all accounts.

                    1. First off, you’re not wrong about voters, both their memory and their lack of logic. That being said, I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as the news is saying it is. I’m by no means saying that Trump and the Republicans should rest on their laurels, but one of the reasons Trump won last time was because of his willingness to go after people who didn’t usually vote, turning areas that were usually non-contested into heavily contested. That hasn’t changed, Trump is still going after people that have traditionally been ignored. And moreover, instead of taking it easy during the primaries, he went hard, using it as an early campaign trail, and he had “yuge” results from that. Tulsa might not have had many people there, but 1 out of every 20 people in the US was watching it. That’s not normal. You have also had lots of people getting an in-person view of what the Democrats believe with all the riots. That isn’t going to help Biden.

                      Finally, bear in mind that the media was extremely anti-trump last go around, and they just had a collective massive purge last month of any folks who wanted to keep up the semblance of being unbiased (The NY Times was the most open about this, but it was happening all over). You have the media straight-up lying about Trump’s Rushmore speech, saying that he was supporting confederate statues and being divisive. Why wouldn’t they lie about polls too?

                    2. Yes, but don’t underestimate the left overplaying it’s hand. They could have played it smart, but instead went whole-hog on the “white people are the source of all of our problems and need to atone for their sins” path. That’s not going to sit well with lots of people.

                    3. Why do you require something to go by?

                    4. To whatever extent it is in any way indicative of reality, there are a boatload of black Trump supporters on Twitter

            2. Polls asking about approval/disapproval of the direction of the country are dishonest. I see the question a lot and never a follow up of who do you to blame.
              Any polls with majority disapproval is spun to blame the president. With Covid and riots people may not like the direction the country is going but they may not be blaming Trump.

              1. 2020 has seen a succession of:
                1. Bullshit impeachment
                2. Bullshit pandemic
                2b. Bullshit “quarantines”
                3. Bullshit rioting

                All leftist caused

      2. I think the voters should also give serious consideration to the prospect of what the world might be like if the Democrats had control of the House, the Senate, and had Biden in the White House.

        If the Democrats had control of the Senate now, American voters might be more reluctant to put a Democrat in the White House. Well, the Democrats have a good shot at taking the Senate.

        If the Democrats take the Senate and the White House, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, reparations, student loan forgiveness, etc., they’re all on the table during President Biden’s first two years in office.

        1. And, of course, dear old amendment 25.
          Pay close attention to who the democrats anoint as the VP candidate. She will be the next president as soon as the new cabinet is designated and signs off that sleepy Joe is, in fact, batshit crazy.
          And then, because if he gets elected, that will mean the dems have the house and senate, they can pass a law designating the DNC as the official designator of ‘unable to perform”.

      3. Biden has 40 years of game film. People just havent been watching the old film.

        1. You’re making the assumption that voters and casual football fans are rational. They clearly aren’t, which is why I like the analogy.

          1. Biden kneeling before his “crowd” of supporters (all press) yesterday isn’t too inspiring a look

  18. “But that was then. Since Trump took office, even women who had voted for him in 2016 “began shifting away from the president,” Longwell writes.”

    That’s some hardcore wishful thinking, senpai.

  19. Turns out that shockingly Dalmia was lying in her screed about the evil Trump deporting poor foreign students.

    ONCE AGAIN, THE MEDIA IS LYING: I’ve seen countless stories about ICE’s “new” student visa requirement barring student visas for students who would be taking only online classes. The idea that this is “new” is false. Foreign students are required to take a “full course of study” to fulfill visa requirements. The longstanding rule is that a study may take only one online class per semester as part of the full course of study. ICE *may* allow a student to take more than one online course, but any additional course must be taken in the physical presence of a university instructor. Here is the DHS webpage from 2012, in the Obama years:

    An F-1 student may only count one online or distance education course without the physical oversight of a school employee (or the equivalent of three credits) toward a full-course of study per academic term. F-1 students may be eligible to take more than one online class to maintain their status as long as the class is physically proctored or monitored by a school employee.

    ICE waived the rule for the Spring and Summer 2020 semesters due the Covid emergency. Given that Congress has now had four months to address the issue but has not, it’s not clear what the “emergency” would be that would allow ICE to ignore a binding regulation.

    In any event, given that the regulation is clear that foreign students may not stay in the U.S. on student visas if they are taking online only classes, and given that universities knew they may have to go all online this Fall, why are so many university “leaders” acting like the government actually enforcing the rule once the immediate emergency has passed is a complete surprise? Surely it was *possible* that ICE would agree to continue to not enforce a rule, but surely any decent university lawyer would have understood that it was not a certainty, and would have been advising the provost to make contingency plans for foreign students. And, though the answer here is obvious, why are so many reporters stating that this is a “new” rule?

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/386198/

    If the case for open borders is so compelling, why does reason constantly feel it necessary to lie when making it?

    1. Yeah, but Dalmia’s alarmism matches the media narrative, so it must be true.

    2. Your argument is that the regulation isn’t “new” and thus we should ignore Dalmia’s entire narrative. What about the merits of the regulation? What about government-induced panic that has caused these F-1 students harm? I’m sure they’d love to attend a full slate of classes in person. Government-induced panic has prevented that and you would just as soon punish the student for governments’ faults.

      Or are you simply for the “rule of law” no matter what in this case, despite your reasonable arguments above?

      1. “ICE’s Plan To Kick Out Foreign Students Is Chilling”

        After John’s link, do you still find that headline okay, or do you think it might be oversold a bit?

        Is that or isn’t it the whole direction of the piece in question?

        1. The media (including Reason) are often overselling headlines, sure. Who isn’t these days? But even a hypothetical situation is worth analyzing the merits of laws/regulations. We do it all the time.

          That their headlines are click-bait doesn’t mean we should dismiss their entire argument.

          1. Is the argument in question better than the headline or is the headline an accurate representation of what’s inside?

            1. Here’s the last line of the piece:

              “But this is a diabolical plan whose only purpose is to feed this administration’s obsessive and irrational hostility towards foreigners and immigrants. There is really no other explanation.”

              —-Shika Dalmia

              https://reason.com/2020/07/08/ices-plan-to-kick-out-foreign-students-is-chilling/

              Do you or don’t you think that concluding statement stands up to scrutiny in light of John’s link?

              1. It’s typical Shika histrionics and anti-Trumpism. It should be scrutinized. Just because Shika is reflexively anti-Trump doesn’t mean her arguments don’t have merit.

                She’s not wrong that Trump has a history of being anti-immigration. Just because the tools Trump uses to limit immigration are “legal” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question whether they are just.

                1. You just cant bring yourself to admit youre wrong can you?

                  Ken made a very compelling case. You did not.

            2. If you read it objectionably and ignore the histrionics at the beginning, I think she’s making, ultimately, a similar argument to mine below. The F-1 students are being punished for something that is totally out of their control, and in fact has been pushed onto universities by the panic of their own state governments. Doesn’t seem equitable to me either.

              1. *bjectively, not objectionably

                1. I give up

        2. You’re upset that a headline is oversold? How many times per day do ‘headlines’ upset you?

          The article itself is quite clear that it is ICE that is creating the means by which those visas are enforced. Of course Shikha almost never gets into the weeds of how these rules get enforced. Virtually no writers at Reason do that because Reason has its ideology and that ideology is basically ‘no rules should ever exist and therefore don’t get into weeds where some rules are better than others’.

          Course the R commentariat here doesn’t get into the weeds either. Cuz – ‘we don’t need no steenkin foreigners here’ trumps those weeds too.

          Here’s a half dozen of those weeds. Course it’s a foreign news outlet that has no domestic politics agenda but probably likes flicking the nose of the US. eg students who are back home for the summer but in the process of booking flights back for school this fall. They have the same uncertainty re classes as every other student – but have to make their irrevocable plans in the next couple of weeks. The US embassies there are still closed – so can’t go there to get questions re their visa. The schools are still trying to figure out their operations – which may also have to change – so they can’t resolve anything. And now ICE comes out and says – if things don’t work exactly like they did in the FALL of 2019 and previous years, then we’ll revoke your visa and deport you midyear (which also means never eligible to ever re-enter the US)

          Yes ICE is CREATING this problem.

          1. Speaking of histrionics.

            1. If it ain’t PANIC!!!, the cowardly piece of lefty shit isn’t interested.

          2. I’ve gotten into this a few times with Trump fans who come here for their daily round of Reason critiquing. I admit I don’t even look at the headlines, I read the actual article. I’ll often write a rebuttal to some comment, referring to the article, and then find out from their response that all they did was look at the headline, got upset, and never looked at what the writer actually wrote.

            1. That’s a pretty common occurrence around here.

              It gets even worse: there’s more than a few people around here who follow a very simple algorithm:

              if (author == Dalmia) and (headline contains “immigrant”)
              then (post outrage)

              1. As opposed to you being a fat prog 24/7?

              2. I’ve noticed. Also, the knee-jerk outrage if you substitute “Bailey” for “Dalmia” and “COVID-19” for “immigrant”.

                1. Yes, authors develop a track record of bias and incompetence, just like many of the commenters. And judging them on the entire corpus of their writings is perfectly justified.

                  Thankfully we also have some commenters who bring enlightening and/or challenging ideas that stimulate the very occasional thoughtful discussion. Ken and John certainly fit in this latter category

      2. The argument is that Trump is not getting rid of foreigners or doing anything that previous administrations have not done. The rule is that you have to attend classes here to get a student VISA. Online classes are not good enough. If they were, then pretty much anyone could get a student VISA and setting up an online college would be the easiest dodge around the immigration system ever invented.

        This requirement was waived last spring because so many universities went online and it wasn’t fair to just throw students who had leases and were planning to be here for the semester out of the country. Well, now that isn’t the case. And all Trump did was get rid of the one time exception.

        There is nothing unprecedented about that and her alarmism about it was a complete fucking lie. Despite your claims to the contrary, there is never a single immigration law that you actually want enforced. You will claim it in theory but then when it is actually enforced suddenly it is the worst thing ever.

        Again, if your case was so compelling, why can’t you ever make an honest and consistent argument for it?

        1. I did above. Don’t conflate my arguments for Shikha’s just because we happen to both be for immigration.

          You didn’t address my point. The government has caused this issue of in-person classes being scrapped for online classes. Yet you’re happy letting the F-1 students bear the brunt of it. “Government overreached… sorry, get out until our government-induced panic is over,” is hardly an equitable solution.

          A reasonable compromise would be to allow students who were enrolled prior on an F-1 some leeway this year (like they did last year), while not allowing new F-1s or the incoming year unless some requirements for in-person classes is met.

          1. That would be reasonable. But so would enforcing the law now that everyone has warning about what will and will not be online. Just because you like yours doesn’t make the other unreasonable or the people who have the power to make that decision wrong.

            Maybe there is reason to disagree about this and not everyone who isn’t a fanatic open borders advocate unreasonable. What a fucking concept.

            1. Make an argument why it’s reasonable (or equitable) to hold F-1 students accountable for government’s actions to cause their schools to shut down. I’ve not heard one yet. Saying that it’s “legal, so what” doesn’t mean it’s equitable.

              1. You’re working off a premise that has no bearing. Virtually every state has put the onus of school reopening on the school.

                If a school chooses to go online there is no purpose of the F1 visa to go to the student he was attending in person. If the student wishes to remain in the states he can try to go through other visas.

                What you’re actually arguing for is to ignore an exploitation of a loophole for your preferred policy of increased immigration in general.

                There is no rational argument to argue for ignoring the terms of F1 vusas because that is not the argument you are making. You are arguing for increased immigration.

                1. Of course there is a rational argument. These students have built a life in the US because they thought they would be here for at least 4 years to complete their education in a traditional classroom setting. Whether schools have the ability to reopen on their own doesn’t change the fact that the government has imposed draconian regulations severely limiting social interactions and stoking unnecessary fear into the public.

                  You’re all for changing these people’s lives significantly because of some loophole law. Here’s a hint… these students and universities aren’t doing this as some dastardly plan to game the system. They were in the system, and through no fault of their own they are suddenly now in violation of some regulation.

                  Also it’s not like these programs are going to remain online forever. This is a temporary issue that you are proposing causing young people who played by the rules to suffer for.

                  1. Your compromise above is reasonable. Students here on F-1 visas should be allowed to stay and no new F-1’s issued. Anyone who went home should stay there, tough luck. BUT, those staying should have to provide proof that they are full time students – receipts for tuition would suffice – in order to stay.

      3. He’s for the rule of law, when he likes the consequences. If the law clearly states that Congress never ceded Indian tribes reservation rights to half of Oklahoma, and the Supreme Court acknowledges it, he criticizes the court for being disruptive.

        1. When the law burdens the majority group, then the law is the problem.
          When the law burdens minority groups, well, then it’s time for some Judge Dredd THE LAW’S THE LAW action.

          1. Jeff has gone fill critical theory but pretends he is a libertarian. Good times.

            1. What the hell are you even blabbering about now.
              Did Tucker mention “critical theory” on his show and now you think you see it everywhere?

              1. He’s talking about your embrace of talking points you apprently dont know the origin of fatty.

        2. He’s for the rule of law, when he likes the consequences.

          That’s exactly why there is no rule of law. It’s a myth. Even most SCOTUS justices are pretty consistently for a strict interpretation of a law when they like the consequences. Why else do you think that so many issues are decided by a 5-4 court?

      4. Framing is important. If the frame is shifted such that the history of an act is intentionally clouded, a reasonable discussion cannot be had. So yes, calling people out for intentionally mis-framing an argument is absolutely valuable.

      5. Again, as I posted yesterday, my daughter is a foreign student. She goes to Vet school in Grenada. She has been thru the exact same process.

        She was admitted to the country under sponsorship of St George’s University, as a full time student. They closed down in early March when the native cruise ship employees began coming home. The University actually chartered planes and flew everyone off the island. All American vet and med students were flown to Miami, they got home on their own dime from there.

        The last 8 weeks of class were done online. They are doing fall semester online. As such, there is no reason for my daughter to be in Grenada until after Christmas. No rational person would think there is. And Grenada is a desirable destination, the University is on a gorgeous beach, and my daughter rented a house overlooking a compound owned by Oprah.

        I don’t see how any rational person who isn’t an open borders zealot could even begin to argue that there is a need to be here for online classes. It never even occurred to us in the reverse.

        1. I would point out that if “Home” is anywhere east of the Danube or west of Hawaii, taking classes online from there is very inconvenient. I have a work colleague who has been locked down, unable to leave a campus in India while trying to “Work Remotely” with his teams here in the US. It has been soul crushing.

          1. Boo hoo!! I have clients spanning the area from E Europe west to Singapore. Yes it’s inconvenient sometimes, but grow a pair and do your job. It was a lot tougher 30 years ago, so your friend gets no sympathy from me.

    3. Horse shit john. That is not even what that article says. FFS. ICE waived the rule for the Spring and Summer 2020 semesters due the Covid emergency. Given that Congress has now had four months to address the issue but has not, it’s not clear what the “emergency” would be that would allow ICE to ignore a binding regulation.

      You R’s WANT Congress to simply declare the covid19 virus an illegal and deport it. To FEDERALIZE the response to covid19 – and mandate that NO ONE at a lower level can do anything local to address it because ‘it’s not really an emergency’ and therefore federal rules re visas should trump all local actions re a virus.

      You R’s fucking LOVE a mindless bureaucrat interpreting a law as harshly as possible. As long as the object of that bureaucrat is a foreigner.

      1. They waived it for the emergency. They have the discretion to do that. That means the have the discretion not to do that. They had good reason to waive it since the students were here attending class. Now that we have had a summer and they know they don’t need to be here, assuming they don’t, there is no reason to continue the waiver.

        What they did makes perfect sense. You are just a fanatical moron who thinks that any action that doesn’t suit your tastes and desired results is illegal and wrong. But hey, you make up for being a fanatical moron by being tiresome, boring, and ignorant. So, there is that.

        1. They waived it for the emergency. They have the discretion to do that. That means the have the discretion not to do that.

          Yes. And apparently they also have the discretion to decide that it is both an emergency and not an emergency simultaneously. IOW – it is enough of an emergency to require a quarantine when traveling here to attend classes in person. But if those classes have to go back online because the school/muni sees it as an emergency, then it is not enough of an emergency to suspend visa rules to remain here. So back they go – with another quarantine on the other country side. Until classes reopen in person here, then they are required to come back here and attend or visa revoked – and hey presto, another quarantine

          1. On the bright side, if you (assume for a sec you’re one of them foreigner kids) have a question as to how this all works, you can go to the embassy to ask. Except that it’s closed because of the emergency. Except of course that it’s not really closed according to ICE because there is no emergency

          2. They decided the waiver was no longer necessary even if the emergency continues you fucking retard. God you are fucking stupid.

            1. Admit it. You’re perfectly fine with totally arbitrary government following no coherent rules and not having to explain itself or even explain the rules it follows (or doesn’t follow – or reinterprets in the middle). As long as the object of that is foreigners.

      2. Remember, JFree claims to be neutral lol. Total leftist.

    4. She never claimed it was some new thing. She reported the same facts as in the article you link above.

    5. The point, John, is that Trump is using the letter of the law, contrary to its intention, to go after foreign students. The point of that regulation is to avoid granting visas to students who are only going to get scammed by online diploma mills. That is no longer the case when even the legit universities must go online because of the pandemic.

      And it is completely rich that in this very same comment page you are both advocating for the strict application of the law, when it is used against “the others”, but arguing for ignoring the law, when it is used against the majority group. If Oklahomans being burdened with enforcement of a 100-year-old treay is too much of an inconvenience to justify ignoring the law, why is the same argument not valid as well here? Wouldn’t having millions of foreign students who are legitimately trying to get a decent education, not just running scams with diploma mills, being deported, wouldn’t that be a big inconvenience as well? Why shouldn’t the law be waived in this case too?

      1. The point, John, is that Trump is using the letter of the law, contrary to its intention, to go after foreign students.

        The intention of the law has always been to grant foreign students VISAs to attend college in person. Attending college on line was never considered eligible for the VISA. So, Trump enforcing the law as it was intended. You are trying to make it so that on line get’s you a VISA, which is the opposite of what is intended.

        I don’t expect you to know much, but could you please stop lying. All you ever do is lie. And then when the lie is pointed out to you, you lie some more. Stop it.

        1. “The point, John, is that Trump is using the letter of the law, contrary to its intention, to go after foreign students.”

          This is sort of like Apple using the ‘loophole’ of tax law in keeping a bunch of money overseas.
          If lefties don’t like an application of a law, it’s a “loophole”, right, Jeff?

      2. The intention of the law is to allow students to migrate for in person instruction, not online instruction.

        Why must you lie?

      3. Foreign students who are only supposed to be here to attend classes, which are cancelled. Pretty open and shut.

        1. Foreign students who are only supposed to be here to attend classes, which are cancelled.

          Yup, there is an awful lot of arguing above, but this is simple. Classes cancelled = time to go home.

          I am kind of curious as to why anyone really wants a bunch of Eurotrash and Arabian princes hanging around during an epidemic spread by close contact. They are a bunch of rich assholes here to bang co-eds, which is virtually the opposite of ‘flattening the curve’.

          1. Often the schools want the tuition and fees these foreign students pay, whereas so many Americans are on scholarships.

  20. https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/09/black-lives-matter-activists-harass-baptist-church-in-upstate-new-york-n627117

    Black lives matter activists harass a Baptist church in upstate New York. If this sort of thing doesn’t stop, some of these “activists” are going to end up dead. People in small towns are armed and just are not going to take this shit the way guilty white people in cities will. Hell I don’t think this shit is going to fly in the suburbs. But in rural America? These dumb asses have a fucking death wish.

    1. That kind of behavior definitely would not fly in TX or MT. Parishioners would pull out guns. And then everyone would behave themselves.

    2. Again, same question I asked about other articles that have been linked here about “BLM activists”. Were these people actually affiliated with BLM or participating in a BLM-sponsored event? How did the reporter establish their connection to the BLM organization?

      1. What a silly question. If you protest police brutality, that makes you a BLM member, a violent rioter, and a Marxist. It is known.

        1. Read the article you fucking half wit. Watch the video. They say exactly who they are and even carry signs. Do you think they are fucking lying? Are they black people who are really white supremacists?

          Do you think everyone is as stupid as you appear to be and will just believe any lie you tell?

          1. Hey, moron, I was mocking the general tendency around here to try to associate everyone going to a protest with some formal affiliation with BLM and indoctrination in Marxism. I guess someone is a little touchy about being made fun of like that.

            1. Hey moron, you made a non-existent point because you thought it was a gotcha, despite the people in the video directly stating who they were and their intentions.

              1. Look who’s really touchy today.

            2. If only you would see the tendency of yourself to present strawman arguments as fact. The cases mentioned here literally have people saying they are with blm. You completely ignored the BLM founders and their marxists quotes. Your an ignorant person.

              1. You are a right wing parroting idiot. Go back to Tucker until he tells you what your talking points ought to be for today.

                You completely ignored the BLM founders and their marxists quotes.

                We literally had this conversation just last weekend. Is an organization to be judged by the quotes of their founders, or what the organization actually does? Because Reason’s founders said some pretty libertarian things but likely most of you don’t think that Reason is very libertarian today based on what it actually does. But in the case of BLM you think it should be judged as a “Marxist organization” because of what some founding members said despite everything else that they do.

                But this is nothing new to you, it’s not like you are intellectually honest in the slightest. Just a right-wing parrot.

                1. Aww you’re upset because you constantly lie and straw man and everyone laughs at how stupid you are huh fatty?

                2. Jeff: “BLM is not marxist”
                  Everyone else: “Their founders say they are”
                  J: “But organizations change – they’re not what the founders say they are”
                  Ee: “Their official principles, posted on their website, are explicitly marxist”
                  J: “But not every BLM demonstration is a BLM demonstration and not everyone is in BLM”
                  Ee: “They say it is and they say they are”
                  J: “RiGhTwInGeR!!!!!!!!”

            3. try to associate everyone going to a protest with some formal affiliation with BLM and indoctrination in Marxism

              Because a casual affiliation with the ideology that lead to death of 100 million citizens at the hands of their own governments is fine? Like the behavior of these idiots doesn’t speak to that affiliation without a sign?

              Better tighten up that chin strap, Jeffy. If your helmet falls off you might hurt yourself banging your head into that wall.

          2. I had time to skim the article, and was not in a place where I could watch the video, so I asked the question. Still not totally clear on the answer because you answered it in a flippant way, I’m not sure if you really took my question seriously or really scrutinized the article.

            1. OK, so I am now in a place where I could see the videos. I saw two linked, one about 9 minutes long and one 2 minutes long. I watched the first minute or so of each and it was just a bunch of people yelling and chaos.

              John, when you wrote, “Read the article you fucking half wit. Watch the video. They say exactly who they are and even carry signs.” Are you saying you could understand what the various people in the video are yelling? Is there a time stamp that you can give where someone makes a clear statement they are affiliated with Black Lives Matter?

              I looked at the article again and still don’t see any clear explanation of how the reporter confirmed the protestors’ affiliation with Black Lives Matter.

              I found one article from a different local paper that seems to say that two Black Lives Matter activists heard about the protest, and joined it. So, that would imply they did not organize it, and it also doesn’t make it clear whether they are the protestors who are being confrontational.

              There are certainly some assholes in the video, but I’m still wondering if they really are “BLM activists”. Also, gotta say that a church that gives away AR-15 rifles is pretty danged weird.

              1. “HURR DID SOMEONE CHECK TO SEE IF THEY HAD A BLM MEMBERSHIP CARD IF NOT THEN THEY AREN’T BLM ACTIVISTS DERPITY DOO!”

        2. chem….I see it this way.

          When people say black lives matter, I completely agree. In fact, I’d wager that 99% of the people who post here would agree with that. As a Jew, I believe that every human being is created in the image of our Living God. Race doesn’t matter. Sex doesn’t matter. Sexual preference doesn’t matter. All of us were created by God, we are all equal is His eyes, and we are merely tenants for these bodies that He created. In this sense, every living human being is a holy thing and all lives matter.

          The organization, Black Lives Matter, is a Marxist organization that is racist and anti-semitic. That is the good part. It goes downhill from there. They believe in the destruction of the nuclear family and the subjugation of all people to the collective government. This is all on their website, and they declare it loudly and proudly. I have nothing but contempt for the organization, and their adherents.

          I would go nowhere near a BLM (the organization) sponsored event. Their organizational beliefs are completely antithetical to mine. There is nothing to discuss, or to compromise. They have already, as an organization, made their feelings about Jews known. And I believe them. So long as their protest is peaceful, respects property rights. I have no issue with it.

          What happened in NY at a Baptist Church was completely unacceptable in a civilized society, and a total disgrace. Those people should be in jail.

      2. “HURR DID SOMEONE CHECK TO SEE IF THEY HAD A BLM MEMBERSHIP CARD IF NOT THEN THEY AREN’T BLM ACTIVISTS DERPITY DOO!”

        1. Now Jeff wants to see laminated CPUSA cards, too

        2. Or you could actually answer my question.

          1. “HURR DID SOMEONE CHECK TO SEE IF THEY HAD A BLM MEMBERSHIP CARD IF NOT THEN THEY AREN’T BLM ACTIVISTS DERPITY DOO!”

      3. Now do Tea Parties

        1. Or boogaloo bois.

  21. Reservations go poof!

    We’re all gonna live in tee-pees and say ‘how’ and make love to Pocahontas and do rain dances and own casinos and sniff glue and…..

    1. “and make love to Pocahontas”
      I’m game.

      1. Elizabeth Warren?

  22. “WASHINGTON—The number of migrants arrested at the southern border jumped by 40% in June from the prior month, according to figures released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    . . . .

    The June increase was fueled primarily by single Mexican adults, who made up about 80% of people crossing the border, CBP said. That shift emerged this year after several years when those encountered at the border were predominantly Central American families.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/arrests-at-u-s-border-with-mexico-jumped-40-in-june-11594326196?

    This is interesting for a number of reasons.

    1) Migrant crisis.

    Back when the asylum seeker crisis was in full swing, 80% of the people being detained for jumping the fence were from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras and they were either children traveling alone or families traveling together.

    President Trump negotiated safe third country agreements with the leaders of those three countries, to kill the incentive to come here, entered into an agreement with the President of Mexico to step up enforcement of Mexico’s border, and effectively shut down the incentive and ability of those asylum seekers to come to the U.S. Trump’s efforts have been extremely effective in that regard and it shows up both in the nationality of the illegal immigrants as well as their ages.

    2) COVID-19

    The surge in COVID-19 cases we’re seeing in Arizona and Texas are probably related to illegal immigration coming across the border from Mexico, where the infection rates are thought to be twice as high as the government is reporting–and where testing isn’t especially widespread.

    I suspect the surge in Mexicans crossing the border may partially be remittance related. On the one hand, it’s harder to find a job in the U.S. than it was before COVID-19. On the other hand, things may be better in the U.S. than they are in Mexico, and with fewer people sending remittances from the U.S. to Mexico because of the recession, sending more people may make sense, especially if each of them are earning less.

    I maintain that if we had an open border treaty with Mexico, immigrants who showed signs of fever could be stopped at border checkpoints. The ability to screen all migrants as they come across a border checkpoint for signs of illness during a pandemic is one great reason to support an open border Treaty with Mexico. We have no defense whatsoever against tens of thousands of of COVID-19 carriers sneaking through the desert in the middle of the night, but letting them cross through a legal checkpoint would give us one.

  23. Remember those ‘239 experts want the WHO to admit that covid19 is airborne transmitted’. From like last week – so kind of the same news cycle timeframe as the dinosaurs. The NYT wanted to leave the impression that this supported more intensive mask-wearing – as in better mandate HEPA/N95 masks and wear them everywhere.

    Turns out now the research in question has been published – and presumably now sent to the WHO with the 239 signatures. And, surprise, it ain’t exactly what the NYT wanted to imply.

    It IS about indoor settings – not about individual protection. And mostly involves stuff that is in fact reasonable to expect regardless of whether it transmits airborne or only in larger droplets. IOW – indoor settings need to look at their ventilation/filtration systems and reduce crowding (esp for long events).

    This could have become an opportunity to actually improve the ways we can get on with life while still dealing with the realities of the virus. Instead, the NYT chose to jerk their authoritarian knee – and everyone responding to the NYT (including the article writers here – and me) chose to respond only to that jerking knee. So, as usual, the end result will be that every other country will figure out how to better deal with the virus. While the US is left heatedly arguing about the irrelevant.

  24. > And while much has been made of college-educated women in the suburbs ditching Trump, a recent ABC/Washington Post survey shows that Trump’s support with white non-college-educated women has fallen by 11 points.

    There’s hope for Jo!!!

    1. “Trump’s support with white non-college-educated women has fallen by 11 points.”

      I suspect these women are over represented in the 40 million who lost their jobs in seven weeks.

      Also, they’re looking forward to the schools reopening. Having the kids home for summer is great. Having to stay home with them because you don’t have a job–they used to call that “house bound”.

      Most women don’t want to be house bound–not even the ones who want to be stay-at-home moms. Being house bound, that’s why they invented date night and divorce.

      Ricky Ricardo circa 1954: “Lucy, I’m home!”

      Housebound woman circa 2020: “Good. I’m out. Bye!”

      1. All of these polls over sample Democrats by a huge margin. And none of them measure likely voters. So they really are reflective of nothing except the people who happened to answer the poll.

    2. only poll that matters is the vote.

      1. Pole Dancer Lives Matter

  25. “In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted dire results:
    The state’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma.”

    No, asshole, the Court has returned the rule of law to the tribes as laid out in the treaty.

    Once again, Roberts picks the wrong side. No wonder people don’t like the guy; he’s wishy-washy.

  26. >>nearly half of Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa, belongs to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

    finally! vengeance against those cheating Sooners.

    1. The Sooners were in the land run of 1889, which covered all the land west of the land covered in this decision.

      1. did I ever tell you I have framed Land Rush titles signed by McKinley? rain on parade lol.

      2. No actually Sooners refers specifically to those who came in SOONER. Sometimes legally, sometimes not. But legally whatever they ‘claimed’ was not a legal claim. Even if it ended up being recognized as legal.

        Boomers (in this context) is the term for those who claimed land pretty much anywhere and did not recognize ANY native claims or US treaties. Again legally, their claims were illegal – but many became recognized unless they tried claiming land in the middle of already settled Indian areas.

        That rush did NOT include all land west. It mostly was an area right in the middle of OK. Roughly now the greater OK City area.

        IDK the terms of statehood of OK – but its a safe bet that every effect has been to diminish the scope/extent of directly tribal authority since that was also the purpose of the US govt (in OK and elsewhere) in transitioning from overall treaties with tribes to individual allocations of land. Clouding that title is exactly what should have been done 100 years ago.

    1. What is going on there? The tweet doesn’t make sense

  27. The Woketarian Left who hijacked the movement against systemic racism, police brutality, and lack of police accountability are pulling all stops to drive white women into the waiting arms of Trump.

  28. I agree 100% with Gorsuch that we need to return to a rule of law, but I’m trying to square this decision with the “sex=sexual identity” bullshit. How the hell can he claim that “well, things change and we got to keep up with the changes” as he did in that one and in this one claim that if Congress wants the law changed they’re going to have to by-god change it and none of this “well, you know what we meant” bullshit? Congress has been shirking its duty for too damn long, let’s hold their feet to the fire. You want a damn law? Make a damn law. No more of this agency “interpretation” bullshit.

    1. I think Gorsuch is just fucking with us now.

      1. Stating that the writers of the Civil Rights Act meant it to cover homosexuality, at a time when homosexuality was an actual crime in a sizable minority of states, was certainly a memorable bit of mental gymnastics.

  29. anti-racist is bigot towards racists?

  30. NEW 66% of public says civilians should have the power to sue police officers to hold them accountable for misconduct, excessive use of force.

    But only police officers? What about that social worker that shows up to take your kids… or… or what about the social worker that shows up now that the police have been defunded? Any word on suing them?

  31. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted dire results:

    The state’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma.

    1. So, if Oklahoma decides to start prosecuting cases from inside Texas they should be allowed to lest their ability to prosecute serious crimes be hobbled?

    2. Fuck you. If someone was convicted by the wrong court that is a procedural error and that person, no matter how foul, should be retried in the right court. Get your shit together, the state has massive resources and shouldn’t be making mistakes like this.

    3. Sounds like eastern Oklahoma was being governed by the wrong entity – it belongs to the Creek, not the state.

  32. Kazakhstan says it isn’t plagued with a new form of super-deadly pneumonia, contrary to a warning put out by the Chinese Embassy in Kazakhstan that this pneumonia strain had already killed 1,700 people.

    Dear me, I do not know who not to believe here.

    1. Make sure to wear thirty-seven masks in the meantime.

  33. So does this ruling actually say a Seminole is a Creek?
    Are ALL “Native Americans” (aka the last victors before the Europeans landed) members of ALL tribes?
    THAT will upset a lot of narratives.

    1. No, it settles a broad question of jurisdiction and leaves it to lower courts to get into details of which tribe a defendant belong to.

  34. (aka the last victors before the Europeans landed)

    I’ve always thought “First Nations” was a really terrible designation for indigenous peoples. They aren’t the first. They are just the last before Europeans showed up.

    But I guess history was just static and harmonious before whitey showed up and ruined everything.

  35. “Majority think people should be able to sue police officers, and more…”

    Does this mean the SCOTUS is open to the idea of innocent people suing over-zealous DA’s, or is suing other lawyers a no-no for the justices on our highest court?

  36. There’s a lot of idiots commenting about the McGirt decision.

    Here’s a joint statement for the tribes affected.

    http://www.choctawnation.com/mcgirt-vs-oklahoma?fbclid=IwAR2EQgSRLiH49lEA3ZZEarvl08GjrQCSFtzffsP9lgFezTdoegh2CjiDTHs

    “Does this decision mean non-Natives no longer own their homes or other property if they live within the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation?

    No. Today’s decision has no effect whatsoever on anyone’s ownership of property, and all existing contracts, leases, and title to property remain as they were before this decision. State law remains applicable for the most part especially with respect to persons who are not members of the Choctaw Nation (or another tribe) and on lands not owned by the tribe or tribal members.”

  37. Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!OPt I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…

    go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste…Click For Full Details.

  38. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website……………………CLICK HERE.

  39. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u do….ReadMore.

Please to post comments