Why Won't the Biden Administration Join Gorsuch in Seeking To Overrule These Racist SCOTUS Precedents?
The Insular Cases “rest on a rotten foundation,” Gorsuch wrote.

Between 1901 and 1904, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of cases, collectively known as the Insular Cases, which asked whether the Constitution should fully apply to the residents of Puerto Rico and other territories recently acquired by the U.S. after its victory in the Spanish-American War. The Court held that the Constitution did not fully apply in those U.S.-held territories.
The Insular Cases have been severely criticized—then and now—for being the product of racist and imperialist thinking. The legal scholar Walter F. Pratt Jr., author of The Insular Cases: The Role of the Judiciary in American Expansionism, described the legal arguments involved as "largely racially motivated," since the Court effectively held that "the people of the new territories were unfit to become citizens."
A similar criticism of the Insular Cases was recently voiced by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who argued that "the Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law."
Gorsuch's characterization is apt. Take the case Dorr v. United States (1904), which asked whether the constitutional right to trial by jury should exist in the Philippines. The Court said no, observing that "the uncivilized parts of the archipelago were wholly unfitted to exercise the right of trial by jury."
In other words, it was racism and imperialism in the guise of a Supreme Court opinion.
Gorsuch also added his voice to those calling for the Insular Cases to be wiped off the books. "The time has come to recognize that the Insular Cases rest on a rotten foundation," Gorsuch wrote. "And I hope the day comes soon when the Court squarely overrules them."
Alas, the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden apparently sees things differently. As The Washington Post's Robert Barnes recently reported, "the Biden administration told the Supreme Court Monday that it should not take up a case [Fitisemanu v. United States] about citizenship rights for American Samoa even though advocates say it would give justices a chance to upend a series of century-old precedents that have been roundly denounced as racist."
Unsurprisingly, the Biden administration's stance has come under fire. "Advocates were disappointed that [Solicitor General Elizabeth] Prelogar asked the high court not to take the case," the Post notes. "'It is shocking that the Biden-Harris Administration and the Solicitor General continue to breathe life into the Insular Cases, which were grounded in a vision of white supremacy that has no place in our society, much less briefs filed by the U.S. Justice Department,' said Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American, which advocates for equal rights in U.S. territories."
To say the least, Gorsuch has probably not been described as "woke" very often. But he sure seems more ready to act against systemic government racism in this case than the liberal Biden administration does.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
EWW!
That’s what Biden’s daughter wrote in her diary just after her shower times.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (as-07) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
"the uncivilized parts of the archipelago were wholly unfitted to exercise the right of trial by jury."
The truth is never racist.
It was a tautology. Uncivilized means, among other thinks, not understand the finer points of civilization, like jury trials.
Sort of like prosecutors overcharging to get better plea deals and not dropping the overcharges when it goes to trial.
Or prosecutors not charging thieving raping murdering cops, then judges allowing qualified immunity when their victims try to get civil damages.
Not all uncivilized people live in jungles and resent invaders and occupiers.
Did the decision apply only to the uncivilized parts or to the whole territory?
Whole territory. And I'm not exactly in agreement with Gorsuch or Reason on this one. It's pretty clear that SCOTUS wanted Congress to turn these territories into proper States or otherwise clarify the jurisdiction rather than the judiciary effectively naturalizing citizens and dictating foreign policy from the bench.
Hardly racist *or* imperialist to demand equal statehood for Filipinos or say they can govern themselves as they see fit. Pretty fucking racist *and* imperialist to say we should've made them a state and governed them ourselves because they couldn't do it right.
I'm leaning this way, too. to be sure, I have no idea what was actually going on in the heads of the judiciary which made these decisions. But if I apply the aesthetics of Modern Audiences to this updated version of the Lord of the Rings, my question is as thus:
Why are we so anxious to apply this racist document written by dead white slave owners to the Puerto Rican people?
Why are we so anxious to apply this racist document written by dead white slave owners to the Puerto Rican people?
Mainland China giving itself the power to extradite people from Hong Kong to stand trial is just how anti-racist globalism, not racist imperialism, works.
But the right to trial by jury and lots of other things in the constitution isn't a special right for citizens.
Maybe the best thing is for the US not to claim jurisdiction in places that aren't likely to become states soon.
But the right to trial by jury and lots of other things in the constitution isn't a special right for citizens.
Sure, but the Constitution doesn't specifically grant them to all non-citizens, if it even grants them (rather than conscripting Congress to do its job) at all.
Maybe the best thing is for the US not to claim jurisdiction in places that aren't likely to become states soon.
Again, the issue would rest with the treaty-negotiating portions of the government, which the Judiciary is specifically not. The Dorr decision cites Chief Justice Marshall on the Orleans territory. Seems like between 1798 and 1904, we had plenty of territory and plenty of states with a decent mix of various despised ethnicities to shake this all out. I mean, Congress created the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1891 specifically because SCOTUS was so overwhelmed with all the new appeals from territories.
AFAICT, the notion that the decision rests with Congress is not really in question. Except among a group of people who want to pretend large swaths of the Constitution are an outdated relic (whom Gorsuch, on this issue, happens to agree).
"Sure, but the Constitution doesn't specifically grant them to all non-citizens"
Neither does it specifically exclude any non-citizens from those rights. The rights are for persons not citizens.
The rights are for persons not citizens.
Sure, so which 2/5ths of a person doesn't get the rights?
The constitution doesn't grant rights, it prohibits the government from violating them. Rights pre-exist government. Those non-citizens have those rights, and the constitution says that right cannot be violated - that includes for non-citizens. All of them. Period.
Yes, it does apply only to citizens.
The constitution addresses the rights of people who are citizens, even as the definition of citizen expanded by amendments. It’s whole focus is the protection of the rights of citizens from the federal government.
Nothing in the constitution addresses non-citizens and courts have been wrong to include them, which has watered down the greatness of being a citizen.
The whole point of delegating in the constitution a right of the government to maintain borders and the obligation to protect states is to benefit citizens. It is from that obligation that the government may naturalize new citizens… or reject them from inclusion under our protection.
I firmly believe that Puerto Ricans, as well as the cited Filipinos, should not be automatically granted citizenship, because they are not and never have been states.
Puerto Rico bought citizenship for its people by giving up land to the US. There’s no constitutional mechanism by which their people should be US citizens.
Philippines is a godforsaken archipelago who never wanted the US around. There’s no question that they’ve never been our citizens or deserving of our legal rights.
The constitution does not grant protections from government to non-citizens. Period.
While natural rights of non- citizens to speak, believe, and live SHOULD be respected, they SHOULD have no LEGAL recourse under the constitution if they feel violated.
The Insular Cases didn’t go far enough.
"Hardly racist *or* imperialist to demand equal statehood for Filipinos or say they can govern themselves as they see fit. Pretty fucking racist *and* imperialist to say we should've made them a state and governed them ourselves because they couldn't do it right."
But it's totally not racist or imperialist to rule them as a territory without making them/allowing them to become a state and denying them the protections of the US Constitution?
You do realize they're no longer a territory of the United States, right?
Yeah, I LOLed at the "In other words, it was racism and imperialism in the guise of a Supreme Court opinion."
I'd certainly agree that holding the opinion became racist/imperialist (or otherwise indistinguishable) over the past 100+ yrs. But the idea that it was racist/imperialist is just as wrong for the same reasons in the opposite direction.
At the time of these decisions (1901-1904), some parts of the Philippines were not only uncivilized, but actually at war with US troops, in a conflict so terrible that afterwards in the US Army a General would salute a Private who "served on Samar". White Confederates didn't get civil rights during the Civil War either, even though Lincoln insisted they were still American citizens.
But this reasonable-at-the-time ruling should not have become a permanent rule, nor been automatically extended to Guam and American Samoa.
To say the least, wokism is racist as fuck.
Yes. Not sure why Root thinks there’s any relationship to being woke and not being racist.
There's a relationship.
Inverse.
Not sure he understands the direct relationship between globalism and imperialism either.
I don't think root understands that woke is racial marxism
Because minorities are only useful to Democrats when voting for them. Otherwise, they're the most racist, bigoted assholes around. And since Gorsuch is a Republican, appointed by OrangeManBad, the Democrats, including the Biden Administration, won't have anything to do with it.
^ You get it.
Why Won't the Biden Administration Join Gorsuch
Because Gorsuch was nominated by the Orange One, and is considered illegitimate.
roundly denounced as racist
2 days ago Biden was talking about the black side of Scranton, where they all played basketball.
Was that near Corn Pop's home, 'cause we all know Corn Pop was a bad dude.
Yes, where he worked as a lifeguard. He was the only white guy there. He actually said this.
And I'd really like to hear Corn Pop's side of what actually went down. I'm betting Biden got in one little fight, and had to move in with his auntie and uncle in Wilmington.
The Fraud Prince of Delaware.
Better trade mark that!
Dave Chappelle should produce a sketch where he plays Cornpop. It could be like that Charlie a Murphy flashback sketch where Chappelle was Rick James.
I'm surprised no black comedian has capitalized on this.
Corn Pop was not a bad dude. Yet another of Biden’s lies.
All that occurred was an exchange of words. The rest was Biden’s lies, fitted into his penchant for black stereotypes.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/corn-pop-joe-biden-son-gang-fight-delaware-a9109141.html?amp
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/corn-pop-joe-biden-son-gang-fight-delaware-a9109141.html?amp
And yet, when put to a vote, Puerto Ricans have repeatedly voted not to become a state. Therefore the question, should the constitution apply fully is an entirely valid one.
I'd say the constitution pretty clearly applies to the federal government wherever it has jurisdiction. But the question of whether. Whether the 14th applies to other governments that are not states is a valid question though.
How did it work in territories that have since become states?
Fair question. Here’s the answer: Since the territories were governed directly by the federal government, the bill of rights, which limits the power of the federal government, applied directly. There was no need to apply the 14th amendment, which was designed to extend the minimum standards of the bill of rights to the states.
…Would not have needed to be applied to the territories
Doesn't matter. Puerto Rico is still a US territory and thus under the jurisdiction of the United States. The US Constitution thus applies.
Further, the Constitution limits the authority of the government, not the rights of the people. It doesn't matter who, if you're within the jurisdiction of the Feds, the Constitution applies.
So your theory is that if the US conquers, occupies, and governs a place, like Japan after WWII, everyone born there during the occupation is a US citizen, because the 14th Amendment applies?
And if not, what, exactly, is the Constitution-mandated distinction between when we ran Japan and when we ran the Philippines? And then what, exactly, is the Constitution-mandated distinction between American Samoa now and the status of the Philippines in 1930?
The Insular Cases, at root, are based on the acknowledgment that it is obviously ridiculous to declare that everywhere that is ever under the control of the authority of the US government as a matter of de facto control and/or international law is, by virtue of that fact, part of the United States for purposes of the Constitution.
Reading the silence of the Constitution on judging the matter as requiring a ridiculous result is not textualism, it is merely insanity.
The Insular Cases didn’t go far enough.
Citizenship is for people living in states, not territories or war trinkets.
Puerto Ricans should not be citizens, regardless of what treaties are signed. If they want statehood, apply and have our states vote on it.
Thus spake the constitution.
Being a territory under the jurisdiction of the US is meaningless drivel. PR became a 'territory' but couldn't become citizens until Congress passed the Jones Act of 1917. Last time I looked S. Ct. cannot propose much less pass laws in violation of the 14th that requires people be born 'IN' America and also be subject to its jurisdiction.
So our rules override their voters wishes because "territory"?
How imperialist of you.
the PRs I know vote (R)
>>In other words, it was racism and imperialism in the guise of a Supreme Court opinion.
status. quo.
What was the system of justice in Puerto Rico before the Spanish American war? And more to my point, how is applying American Constitutional ideals onto Puerto Rico not itself a form of imperialism?
Essentially, I'm getting a strong whiff of:
American Academic: These lands and native peoples have been ravaged by Western Capitalistic Imperialism! Decolonize!
Me: Great, let's remove ourselves and return the land to its native customs.
American Academic: NO! We must apply Marxism and Western Ideals of Social Justice!
It would be hard to give independence to PR when they keep voting against it.
Like free education, there is no value in unearned independence.
Not at all. It's not their decision. The US can cut them loose any time, whether they want to or not.
The US could then also force Puerto Ricans to make a one-time choice between US or Puerto Rican citizenship. Again, whether they want to or not.
Natives? There were no natives in PR by that time.
The funny part is there are no natives left in Puerto Rico, and most of Spanish and Portuguese areas of South America. Cortez made sure of it.
The English and the French descendants take the approach of what we did was wrong and no we need to make up for it with more wrongs, while the Spanish descendant take the approach of yeah we genocide them good
"The English and the French descendants take the approach of what we did was wrong and now we need to make up for it with more wrongs, while the Spanish descendants take the approach of yeah we genocided them good."
ROFLMAO! Even further, and not really through any fault of their own, "Genocide? What genocide? We don't see nobody who got genocided!"
Definitely not just an ephemeral aroma of "When they impose their values on those people, it's imperial and racist. When I do it, it's right."
The Insular Cases are racist, Joe Biden and the Democrats are racist. What's so hard to figure out?
Why Won't the Biden Administration Join Gorsuch in Seeking To Overrule These Racist SCOTUS Precedents?
To answer this specific question, the Biden administration, like most Democratic ones, are very... VERY nervous about overturning court precedents at the moment.
Currently, overturning precedence is being played as anti-democracy. The dems don't want to disturb that right now.
Today in libertarian coverage:
The elite’s green fantasies are finally unravelling
The desperate scramble for fossil fuels now makes the posturing of COP26 look almost otherworldly.
After you posted this, California was forced to beg residents not to charge EVs during the day and Seattle raised thermostats to turn off AC during a heat wave, both for the same reason: — the greenies are running out of electricity.
The Constitution of the United States applies to the States making up that nation. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's not like it is one of those cryptic and murky clauses such as "shall not be infringed".
The US Constittuion applies to the jurisdictdion of the United States. Thus if the US claims jurisdiction over a territory, then inhabitants of that territory have the right to a jury trial. Period. Doesn't matter if that territory is not a state, doesn't matter if the defendant is not a citizen. They are still under US jurisdiction.
Did the US have "jurisdiction" over parts of Germany when it occupied them? How are territories different from occupation?
Forget that bigotted racist Chief Justice John Marshall and every decision between the Louisiana Purchase and today, some nobody named Brandybuck got a brilliant "All your people are belong to us." ideology that's totally not racist or imperialist!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Show me on the First Amendment where it only applies to people in a State.
The United states has had territories pretty much since the day it was founded. Where's the legal precedent that indicates Congress could say "Sorry, Idaho Territory, you're not allowed to keep and bear arms until you become a State."
There are certain parts of the 14th that apply only to states. But anything in the First Amendment applies to the federal government, and territories are ultimately ruled by the federal government.
True, and the 14th Amendment quite explicitly uses the word 'State' to indicate what parts apply to the States. The 17th Amendment also affects states, and is again explicit in doing so. But to say the Constitution as a whole applies only to states is highly ignorant.
IIRC the issue of Samoan citizenship is fairly tangled, with some lefties against automatic U. S. citizenship. I read about the details once but don't remember 100%.
I don't see anything "tangled" about it. There is no constitutional reason to grant citizenship to people born in US territories; it's something the US can choose to do or choose not to do.
Furthermore, these territories have no expectation of remaining in the US.
Good reference to keep handy for the next time your lefty friends start talking about how terrible a guy Gorsuch is.
How is it racist?
Oh yeah we're in "everything is racist" (disproportionate impact) clown world now.
We don't have to decide between everything is racist and nothing is racist. The two concepts are strongly connected, in fact.
If everything is racist, then individual responsibility for racism should logically disappear. You can't help being racist, it's your nature. So why bother trying to be nonracist?
And if nothing is racist, you may as well put on your Klan outfit and ride around burning crosses.
OR...we could look for concrete instances where someone advocates or practices double (or triple, etc.) standards for people based on their race. There's plenty of current examples, and there are past examples which trickle down to us today.
Drew Barrymore dancing in the rain.
I got distracted...what was your point?
They should rewrite the song ‘Everything is Awesome’ from ‘The Lego Movie’.
There is no split among appellate courts that overseas territories are not “in the United States,” (Note: one of the requirements of the 14th Amendment) the Biden administration said, and it is up to Congress to award birthright citizenship, as it has done in Puerto Rico, Guam and elsewhere.
Exactly right. If you allow the S. Ct. to ignore the Constitution you might as well let a majority of 9 old white men take full jurisdiction over a woman's body and decide when she can have an abortion instead of having Congress decide citizenship or in the case of abortion, to the States. The racist taunts in the decisions are regrettable but not dispositive. Even a demented clock is right twice a day!
The comments on the Washington Post op-ed give you a scary look at the people who support Biden.
Yeah, I really wouldn’t mind scraping them off.
A few of them even show up here like that Rev. Arthur Kirkland fella (not to be confused with his better, the Rev. Arthur Kuckland).
I can’t wait until the leaker gets a shot at releasing an early opinion of this case. Assuming that it is taken by SCOTUS.
Probably already has something typed up by those conservative justices. (Really would be nice to have an edit button. )
Sleepy's probably too busy building that giant thermostat in D.C. to control the world's temperature.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that proponents of "woke" ideologies like antiracism are opposed to racism.
They are not. They are explicitly racist ideologies which are crafted to create a racially divided society.
Of course the Biden administration opposes getting rid of racist legal precedents. They want to drag the country in the opposite direction, with more racist policies codified into law by the courts.
Two things can simultaneously be true:
(1) These were racist decisions handed down by a racist court.
(2) US-held territories are not part of the US, and hence the US Constitution does not fully apply.
In fact, the US should simply grant independence to the territories it holds and be done with it, foremost Puerto Rico.
This seems like the right answer to me.
Where does the constitution authorize the federal government to control territories (other than DC) indefinitely without their becoming states?
It authorizes Congress to treaty with foreign nations as they see fit. If Hong Kong wants to negotiate its independence with the US, Hong Kong gets a say so. Otherwise, imperialism.
Really? Where does the US Constitution authorize subjugating non-US territories to US law?
Why would Hong Kong "negotiate its independence with the US"?
If you had a brain fart and meant "If Puerto Rico wants to negotiate its independence with the US, Puerto Rico gets a say so.", that's not necessarily true. If the US wants to make Puerto Rico independents, Puerto Ricans need have no say in the matter. No territory outside the US has a legal or moral right to attach itself to the US.
Really? Where does the US Constitution authorize subjugating non-US territories to US law?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
This really isn't that hard.
Why would Hong Kong "negotiate its independence with the US"?
No. You're being retarded. Hong Kong or some other country or territory might want to treaty with the US. They get a say in that treaty. Hong Kong specifically might not want the US judiciary taking over their court systems any more than they want the Chinese extraditing people to mainland China. If they were to negotiate a treaty, they may not want full statehood, it's up to them, any given Pres., and Congress to figure out.
If the US wants to make Puerto Rico independents, Puerto Ricans need have no say in the matter. No territory outside the US has a legal or moral right to attach itself to the US.
Talk about a brain fart. I don't think you know how treaties or imperialism works.
If they aren’t states, they get no citizenship. Period.
It’s not up to congress or treaties to give out citizenship and extend the protection of rights to non-citizens.
Let them apply to be states and let the actual citizens vote to admit them or not.
Nothing in there authorizes "subjugating non-US territories to US law".
You brought up Hong Kong in a discussion of US territories, not me.
Hong Kong is part of China; they can't enter treaties with the US.
It is up to territories only in one direction: they can reject statehood and they can demand independence. But the US does not have to consult them on kicking them out of the US.
I don't think you know how treaties or imperialism work. The fact remains that the US can kick out Puerto Rico any time we want to, and Puerto Rico has no recourse; the US has no, zero obligations towards Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the US could require Puerto Ricans to make a choice between US and Puerto Rican citizenship when imposing independence on Puerto Rico.
There are very few mentions of locations where specific rights and rules applied. Most of the Bill of rights for example is saying explicitly what the federal government CANNOT do. The Federal Government is not a location, it is an entity, and if the bill of rights says the feds can't do something, there is no asterisk saying * only in specific locations.
Gorsuch is a constitutionalist, and it is a pretty clear and logical interpretation.
The fundamental issue is that the people complaining about the Insular Cases are completely unable to offer a better-founded reasonable and justiciable rule.
If your theory is that the full US Constitution applies to anywhere the US is acting as the governing authority, then you're saying (for example) that every Iraqi born between 21 April 2003 and 28 June 2004 (at least) is a US citizen. There is no way in hell that any US court is going to enact such an absurdity, even if you can make a perfectly logical case that the Constitution allows nothing else.
If you accept that the US government can exercise governing authority over an area without it being a part of the United States for purposes of the Constitution, however, you need to actually come up with a way to draw a line between occupied Iraq and the District of Columbia. There's no obvious text of the Constitution that does that, and the oldest precedent on the point is the Insular Cases, which makes them the controlling law.
Jumping up and down and complaining the Insular Cases are non-textual or racist or anything else is not actually solving the problem that there is no available grounds, textual or precedential, for drawing a different line than the one drawn in the Insular Cases. The choices accordingly are:
1) Demand that everyone ever born in any place at a time it was occupied by the US since the 14th Amendment be declared a US citizen, including literally millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Panamanians, Filipinos, Japanese, Germans, etc.
2) Accept the Insular Cases as stare decisis and move on.
3) Demand the Supreme Court use its power arbitrarily to draw a brand-new line with no basis in text or precedent.
"a better-founded reasonable and justiciable rule"
Art. IV(3) of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
That would include PR but *exclude* Iraq, Germany, etc.
That's the result you want, sure. Now you have to actually point to some justicable criteria that actually distinguish why Iraq under occupation wasn't "Territory . . . belonging to the United States" while Puerto Rico is. Go on, give the list of such criteria provided in the Constitution for making that distinction.
There is no textual guidance for determining whether a given territory "belongs" to the United States, rather than simply being occupied and governed by the United States. There accordingly is no textualist way to dispute the claim that Puerto Rico, like Occupied Iraq, is simply governed and occupied by the United States, rather than territory belonging to the United States.
Instead, the distinction between occupied territory, and territory that belongs to the US, is a judgment call. And the Insular Cases are that judgment, already called. There is no textualist grounds for disputing them; all you can do is complain that they didn't make the call the way you would have preferred. But the whole point of stare decisis is that the courts aren't supposed to re-litigate judgment calls.
Now, in the case of Puerto Rico, one can quite cogently argue that the underlying facts changed, and that under the standards of the Insular Cases, Puerto Rico's status during the last 120 or so years has changed form a foreign land under US occupation to territory on the path to US statehood.
But, then, the court case Mr. Root is discussing involves American Samoa, which has not had both major parties calling for its statehood in their party platforms, or had its residents granted US citizenship, or the like. There is no question that American Samoa is still factually on the "Occupied Iraq" side of the criteria established by the Insular Cases. The demand being made is simply that the Supreme Court revisit a judgment call -- not because there's any reasonable way to conclude the call violated the Constitution, but simply because people don't like how the call was made.
Our occupation of Iraq was quite clearly a temporary occupation of foreign territory during a war, and would end as soon as practical after the war ended. In contrast, we occupied _more_ of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam after the Spanish-American War ended in 1898, and we kept all of these but Cuba long after the war. (American Samoa was acquired separately, in an 1899 settlement of conflicting American and German claims. AFAIK, it is now the only place held permanently by the US with a permanent resident population where birth does not convey automatic American citizenship.)
We still have Puerto Rico and Guam, and these have been organized as US Territories, giving those born there American citizenship, although since they are not states they don't have representatives in Congress nor Presidential Electors. (This is the same status as every state after Vermont had before statehood, and DC is still in a similar status) The Puerto Ricans have repeatedly voted to maintain this territorial status in preference to either independence or statehood. Guam once voted to change to a "Commonwealth" within the US, but whatever they meant by that wasn't allowed by the US Constitution.
Their preferences don't really matter. The US can impose independence on, or refuse statehood to, Puerto Rico whether Puerto Ricans want it or not.
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or what, but "woke" generally is being racist against white people (especially "cis" men and Karens)
It had nothing to do with actually being against racism. And of course, Biden has long had ties to actual white supremacists, like Richard Byrd
To avoid being imperial racists with separate and unequal standards for territories and the persons therein, we'll have to take the last of the reservation land back from the Indians and begin shuffling them through out court systems.
But deep down, you knew you were not trying to purge the last rounding error of Indians you had genocided. Deep down you knew you were just trying to cleanse yourself of a bad feeling. Small, but irritating.
Laws and rights should equally apply to ALL states and territories including embassies and bases. Laws and rights should equally apply to ALL citizens regardless of their location with no special rights granted to politicians or government officials.
Why? US territories are semi-independent political entities with their own preferences and cultures. Furthermore, territories have no expectation of remaining within the US; they may well receive independence sooner or later.
Plastic Nancy's drunken hubby owns 17% of Starkist, a major employer in American Samoa. Could be the Dem protection racket taking care of one of its own...
"Gorsuch's characterization is apt. Take the case Dorr v. United States (1904), which asked whether the constitutional right to trial by jury should exist in the Philippines. The Court said no, observing that "the uncivilized parts of the archipelago were wholly unfitted to exercise the right of trial by jury."
The Philippines is a sovereign country. By what authority would the US supreme court (in 2022) justify a "ruling" about how the PI conducts court trials? This thing seems to me to just be a virtue signalling exercise.
The Philippines was a US territory at the time of the ruling.
Gorsuch is not "woke". He's interested in actual justice, not social justice.