Feedback and Notes

Latest Activity

Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.
1 hour ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.
5 hours ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.
5 hours ago
Stephen commented on Doone's group 99.9999999865% of the World and President Cockroach News
6 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
6 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
6 hours ago
Stephen commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion - How Canada Helps Atheism
6 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
8 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group CRITICAL THINKING
10 hours ago
Stephen replied to Tom Sarbeck's discussion ..., because there is no god. in the group Freethought and Funny Bones
17 hours ago
Suzanna commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
18 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck added a discussion to the group Freethought and Funny Bones
22 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Laura zhu
yesterday
Stephen left a comment for Klinger
yesterday
Stephen left a comment for Christopher Marks
yesterday
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
yesterday
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.
yesterday
Chris replied to Lauren Ell's discussion "Morality cannot be solely determined by secularism" in the group Republican Atheists
yesterday
Chris replied to Lauren Ell's discussion Terrorism is nothing new in the group Republican Atheists
yesterday
Chris replied to Lauren Ell's discussion Parts of Sweden are not LGBT friendly or supportive of women's rights in the group Republican Atheists
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Republicans have offered a number of reasons why they oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Some think it’s unconstitutional. Others argue that it’s just a meaningless bill ...

Grab whatever excuse comes to mind Senator, no matter how imbecilic it may be.

Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly
By Scott Keyes on Feb 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added a new one: Native Americans supposedly aren’t capable of holding fair trials.

Last week, Grassley was one of just 22 senators—all Republican men—who voted against reauthorizing VAWA. During a town hall meeting in Indianola on Wednesday, a woman asked him to explain his vote. Grassley responded that the legislation is unconstitutional, a belief shared by at least five of his colleagues.

Since the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a trial among a jury of peers, Grassley reasoned that white men would be deprived of their rights if those who were accused of violence against Native American women had to appear in a tribal court. “On an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right?” Grassley said. “So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.”

GRASSLEY: One provision that non-Native Americans can be tried in tribal court. And why is that a big thing? Because of the constitutionality of it, for two reasons. One, you know how the law is, that if you have a jury, the jury is supposed to be a reflection of society. [...] So you get non-Indians, let me say to make it easy, you get non-Indians going into a reservation and violating a woman. They need to be prosecuted. They aren’t prosecuted. So the idea behind [VAWA] is we’ll try them in tribal court. But under the laws of our land, you got to have a jury that is a reflection of society as a whole, and on an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right? So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.

Think Progress

Views: 78

Replies to This Discussion

He hasn't really thought that to well because shift it around to a native American doing the same thing in white society gets tried by a white court so therefore he does not a get a fair trial!! Now does he?

But then again they couldn't give a rat's about the native receiving a fair trial!

This level of blatant disingenuousness and lack of critical thinking should be unconstitutional. 

Concur!!

What an amendment that would make! The 28th Amendment: "Willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking are not desired attributes for civil servants. Partaking in nonsense disqualifies candidates from public office, and any public servant asking god for help in times of crisis shall be immediately removed from office."

I would sponsor this amendment in a jiffy!

So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.

Based on their observation that in a reverse situation, an Indian would not get a fair trial if judged by whites? Of course not! Whites are capable of fairness (as history shows so well) while Indians can't be trusted...

RSS

© 2017   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service