Skip to main content

When Republican politicians and portions of their Tea Party base are accused of being insensitive  ethnically, culturally, by gender, by sexual preferences, or racially, more so than the public at large, they usually scream with righteous indignation. Yet they continue to overtly display these attitudes both from constituents in their town hall meetings as well as in their legislations.

Last week, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was one of 22 Republican male Senators that voted against the Violence Against Women Act. During a town hall meeting in Indianola, Iowa, Senator Grassley did not disappoint. He was able to justify his no vote on the Violence Against Women Act in stark racist terms.

Grassley in his own words (ThinkProgess)

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.

VIDEO HERE

Of course in his frame of mind he was just stating a fact as he sees it; Native Americans are incapable of holding fair trials. In the Senator’s mind, could a Hispanic or Black jury hold a fair trial for a white person? Based on his assessment it is fair to infer that he does not believe so. Such is the mindset of many in his party that seem to be documented almost on a weekly basis.

That Grassley is a Senator creating and voting on laws that affect all Americans while having little knowledge of the constitution speaks volume of the caricature many elected politicians in Congress have become. ThinkProgress made the reality quite clear.

There is actually no requirement that juries reflect “society as a whole.” The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be drawn from the “State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and Supreme Court decisions establish that criminal defendants also have a right to a jury which is “drawn from a fair cross section of the community,” where the trial court convenes to hear their case. But this does not entitle anyone to be tried by a jury that reflects the whole of American society.

In order to solve a problem one must acknowledge that there is a problem. When different perspectives are brought in, a Party can maintain relevancy. Because the Republican Party has become insular, it is unable to be introspective. Unchanged the Party’s demise is closely approaching.



LIKE My Facebook PageVisit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com

Originally posted to ProgressiveLiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:58 PM PST.

Also republished by Native American Netroots and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Man, Chuck Grassley seriously needs to go. He's (19+ / 0-)

    just getting crazier and crazier in his old age.  Hopefully he'll be retiring in 2016.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:03:09 PM PST

  •  So he is admitting racism exists (26+ / 0-)

    But that white people are the victim?

    Hey at least we found a Republican in 2013 who can admit racism exists. That is a kind of improvement, isn't it.

    The party of poor demented honkies

    Regulate banks, not vaginas

    by MinistryOfTruth on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:04:12 PM PST

    •  One has to wonder (9+ / 0-)

      about an electorate that votes for people like this again, and again, and again.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:50:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'd guess (5+ / 0-)

        that same electorate has made up many a jury deciding the fate or Native Americans.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:34:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Say you were accused of raping a woman in Tribe X (0+ / 0-)

          You walk into court.  The judge is a member of Tribe X, the prosecutor is a member of Tribe X, every member of the jury is a member of Tribe X, and you get told that people who are not enrolled in Tribe X are not even eligible for jury duty.

          Would you feel comfortable you would get a fair trial?

          Would it matter if you were white, black, Hispanic, or just a Native American from a different tribe?

          •  You mean like Native Americans have (12+ / 0-)

            been doing for decades?

            You are a female Native American who has been raped by a white male....You walk into court. The judge is a white, middle aged male. 2/3 of the jury are white males.

            What chance of a fair trial do you think you would get, eh?

            "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

            by SaraBeth on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:12:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's the defendant who has the right to a fair (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Magick Maven, O112358

              trial, not the alleged victim.

              Native Americans are not excluded from state or federal juries.

              2/3 of the jury may be white males, but that means 1/3 are women or minorities.

              Very different from a jury that is required to all be of races other than that of the defendant.

              •  Bunk (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SaraBeth

                All parties involved have a right to a fair trial. That's why the prosecution can also appeal a verdict.

                •  Your ignorance is giving me a headache (0+ / 0-)

                  1. Prosecution cannot appeal a verdict.  They can appeal an unfavorable ruling, but not a verdict.  Little thing called "Double Jeopardy" gets in the way.

                  2. Prosecution is not the victim.

                  3. But I also challenge you to show me where the prosecution is given the right to a fair trial.

                  •  Oh well gee... (3+ / 0-)

                    Ruling vs. verdict. How utterly headache inducing of me.

                    The prosecution is usually there to represent the victim's side and/or the public's side.

                    That all parties in a case have a right to a fair trial is shown in things like laws against defendants bribing judges, or their right to appeal.

                    Now if you're done with this diversion, you can get back to trying to spin Grassley's demonstrably false racist bullshit into some kind of reasonable commentary on something.

                    •  Doubling down on ignorance (0+ / 0-)
                      Ruling vs. verdict. How utterly headache inducing of me.
                      If you don't understand the difference (and it appears you do not) then yes.
                      The prosecution is usually there to represent the victim's side and/or the public's side.
                      Wrong.  Actually, neither is true, although the public is closer.  The prosecution actually represents the government.
                      That all parties in a case have a right to a fair trial is shown in things like laws against defendants bribing judges, or their right to appeal.
                      Interesting theory.  Now provide some factual support.  The defendant's right to a fair trial is guaranteed by multiple court decisions and based on the Sixth Amendment.
                      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
                      Note the granting of rights to the accused?  Where are the rights for the prosecution?
                      Now if you're done with this diversion, you can get back to trying to spin Grassley's demonstrably false racist bullshit into some kind of reasonable commentary on something.
                      Demonstrably false?  Do tell... please demonstrate that something he said was false.
              •  So, the victim does not deserve a fair trial too? (0+ / 0-)

                "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

                by SaraBeth on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:30:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  There is no Tribe X (3+ / 0-)

            No indigenous nation lives in isolation, drawing a jury from the wider community would mean drawing individuals to the jury pool are not enrolled members of that nation.

            Tribe X is a figment of your settler imagination.

            •  um, no (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Black and Blue

              what he describes (except the prosecutors, who are often non members) is a reasonable description of the reality in many tribes.  Given the size of many tribes, in fact in many instances the relevant parties may be relatives, to boot.

              I'm not sure making sotto voce accusations of racism is what you want to do here.  I'm not getting the sense you have a lot of experience with tribal justice systems.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:24:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The electorate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gffish

        Those same people have also sent Tom Harkin to Washington again and again and again. It's hard to explain these things.

        My two US senators are...wait for it...Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson. Talk about an odd couple.

        The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

        by Korkenzieher on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:00:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um... actually, I think this is backed by the SC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wednesday Bizzare, Magick Maven

      Correct me if I am wrong, but my understand is that juries in tribal courts are drawn from tribe members only... as are the judges.

      I think it has been pretty well established that having jury pools that systematically exclude members of the defendant's race is unconstitutional.

      As an example, would you consider it remotely controversial if someone had said that a jury drawn from a pool that excluded Native Americans could not fairly try a Native American?

      •  That would mean . . . (6+ / 0-)

        That a US court could not fairly try an undocumented immigrant, since the pool is drawn only from American citizens. I think it's stretching a bit.
        This isn't just another town. Reservations are sovereign, or at least semi-sovereign. Frankly, my layman's understanding (which may be wrong) was that it would be more like committing a crime in a foreign country - whose law do you think you'll be tried under?

        “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?” - Rumi

        by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:01:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if you commit a crime on a reservation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Magick Maven, O112358

          you are tried under US law unless both you and your victim are tribal members and the appropriate punishment is quite minor.

          Reservation sovereignty is pretty limited.  If we're going to rely on that I think we should start by letting them establish their own cigarette taxes and gambling laws before we move on to criminal law for non-members.

          What do you do if a tribe starts pronouncing death sentences on people its leadership don't like?

          •  that would of course be unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

            since tribes are still subject to the US Consitituion

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:08:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            O112358

            After Oliphant and Duro v Reina, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act  to include the power  of tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians and not just tribal members.

            You are correct that the tribes only have jurisdiction over relatively minor crimes.

            I agree the States need to stay out of a Tribe's sovereign right to regulate cigarettes and gambling. They should stay the fuck out.

              And your remark about

            What do you do if a tribe starts pronouncing death sentences on people its leadership don't like?
            is just too stupid to answer.

            ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

            by jennybravo on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:17:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you sure? (0+ / 0-)
              Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act  to include the power  of tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians and not just tribal members.
              I don't see how that can possible be Constitutional.

              Consider... an African American member of the Zulu tribe, a white French American descended from the ancient Gaul tribe, a registered member of the Iroquois Nation, and a registered member of the Snoqualmie Nation all commit the same crime on the Snoqualmie reservation.

              I can see the argument that the Snoqualmie agreed to Snoqualmie tribal jurisdiction by registering as a Snoqualmie.

              But I can't see any Constitutional justification for treating the Iroquois any different from the African American or the French American.

              And your remark about
              What do you do if a tribe starts pronouncing death sentences on people its leadership don't like?
              is just too stupid to answer.
              Oh?  And why?  After all, many tribal court systems would not satisfy Constitutional requirements.  https://www.bja.gov/...
              Some tribal courts resemble Western-style courts in that written laws and court procedures are applied. Others use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as peacemaking, elders' councils, and sentencing circles.
              Want to guess how long a rape conviction handed down by an "elders' council" would last in a Federal Appeals Court if tribal courts have to follow the US Constitution?
              •  Yes, I am sure (0+ / 0-)
                Author
                ALEX TALLCHIEF SKIBINE *
                Excerpt
                I. INTRODUCTION

                On May 29, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Duro v. Reina. 1 In this decision, the Court held that Indian tribes could not prosecute nonmember Indians for crimes committed on their reservations because it would be inconsistent with the tribes' status as domestic dependent nations to allow them to assert criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians without congressional authorization. The decision was an extension of the Court's 1978 decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 2 in which the Court had ruled that Indian tribes did not have the inherent sovereignty to assume criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations.

                Within a few months of the Duro decision, Congress responded by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act 3 and its definition of the "powers of self-government" to expressly "recognize" and "reaffirm" the inherent power of Indian tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all "Indians" on their reservations. 4 The legislation defines "Indians" as those individuals recognized as "Indians" for purposes of being subjected to federal jurisdiction under certain federal criminal laws. 5 As explained more fully below, for the Duro legislation to be constitutional, however, the term "Indians" must be limited to include only those Indians who are members of some Indian tribe. 6 Although the original legislation had contained a sunset provision of September 30, 1991, Congress that year removed the expiration date, making the changes permanent law. 7

                https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/...

                Oh?  And why?  After all, many tribal court systems would not satisfy Constitutional requirements.  https://www.bja.gov/....

                   

                Some tribal courts resemble Western-style courts in that written laws and court procedures are applied. Others use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as peacemaking, elders' councils, and sentencing circles.

                Want to guess how long a rape conviction handed down by an "elders' council" would last in a Federal Appeals Court if tribal courts have to follow the US Constitution?

                There is no tribal jurisdiction over rape charges in the Act. The only jurisdiction is over cases of domestic violence.  And under the provisions of the Act, the tribal courts would have to meet all Constitutional  protections and tribal courts that do not have systems in place to meet these requirements will not have jurisdiction until the do.

                ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

                by jennybravo on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 12:24:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for the cite (0+ / 0-)

                  I would uprate but for some reason I don't have the box to do that showing on my screen.

                  Do you know if tribal jurisdiction over non-member Indians has been challenged under equal protection grounds?  

                  And under the provisions of the Act, the tribal courts would have to meet all Constitutional  protections and tribal courts that do not have systems in place to meet these requirements will not have jurisdiction until the do.
                  That certainly seems better.

                  Who will make the judgement?  Do you know if one of the requirements will be to have jury pools that draw from all residents rather than just enrolled members of the tribe and for judges to be chosen on a non-racial basis?

      •  I've know a couple of tribal judges (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Penny GC

        who were not tribal members  and one who not Native.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:36:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        as far tribal sovereignty goes, Native Americans are not  a race and the laws which apply in Indian Country are not race based. They are basically a political and legal construct developed over centuries in this country.  No one big law was passed which determined the fate and sovereignty of all the tribes. They were passed treaty by treaty,  law by law and Supreme Court Ruling by Supreme Court Ruling.  And in a sense they had nothing to do with race. They all were based tribal membership, or more correctly, tribal communities.

        So there should be no race problem as far as tribal jurisdiction and juries go. The tribes a legally defined community, just like any county, city or town.  They are not a race.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:53:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The citizens of a county, city, or town are (0+ / 0-)

          determined by where people live.

          The members of a tribe are determined by who people's ancestors were.

          Big difference.

          •  It is the tribes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Free Jazz at High Noon

            themselves that determine who tribal members are.  In some tribes the blood quantum is amazingly low for enrollment. In other tribes you must be more than half.  I'd say the most common is 1/4.  Non Native Individuals can also be legally adopted into a tribe and have all the rights of tribal members.  Most natives who come from more than one tribe, must choose which one to enroll in (if they are qualified.)

            The point I am trying to make is that Tribal enrollment, jurisdiction, laws, etc are very complex.  It is not as simple as "Hey, you're an Indian!)

            Native Americans must have legal "papers" proving their tribal identity in order to be considered Indian according to Federal law. I don't think any other group in this country has that requirement.

            That is why being an Indian is more complex than just a racial identity.

            Does the idea of allowing  non-Indian people to commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country, with virtually no chance of prosecution bother you as much as the idea  of Non-natives being tried in a tribal court?

            ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

            by jennybravo on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:07:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think trials in tribal courts that do not (0+ / 0-)

              give defendants the normal rights that they have under our Constitution are remotely defensible.  "Hey, they're probably guilty, who cares about their rights!" is not the normal kind of attitude on this site.

              In addition, I think it is counterproductive - how long do you think those convictions will stand once defendants start appealing them to the federal courts?  And given double jeopardy it will not be possible to retry such people in any other court.  How do you feel about criminals getting off scott free because we ignored their rights?

              I think either tribal courts have to raise their standards to match the requirements of the US Constitution or we have to try people who commit crimes on tribal lands in state or federal courts.

    •  I wonder whether (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gffish, maybeeso in michigan

      the good senator would say that an a white jury is incapable of fairly trying a person of color:

      In the Senator’s mind, could a Hispanic or Black jury hold a fair trial for a white person?

      Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

      by Miniaussiefan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:36:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  let me get this straight (6+ / 0-)

      when black people are tried by all white juries, this smacks of racist justice, and it's not racist to say so.

      When white people are tried in a where the victim and jury are all members of a community, but the accused is not, it is racist to point that out?

      Gotcha.

      Grassley's point that the jury make up is legitimate one, and the attempt to turn it into something racist is not well founded here.

      That said, the alternatives to VAWA and extending tribal jurisdiction to these cases are a whole hell of a lot worse.  Particularly, since pulling these cases into state court would face the likely inverse problem, where the jury and accused would all be non-Indian, while the woman who is the victim is not.  CLearly that also won't work.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:16:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gotta rec this. While I'm not defending Grassley (0+ / 0-)

        overall, in general MN's reasoning here is pretty sound.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:57:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tribal sovereignty has nothing (0+ / 0-)

        to do with race.  People need to look at tribes as States within a State, where unless a law is specifically passed by Congress,  that particular state's laws have no power in Indian Country.  Your idea that the accused must be a member of the community they are tried in is goofy.  If you live in New York city and commit a crime in Pennsylvania, are you saying you can only be tried in New York City or by jurors brought in from New York City?

        The same holds for tribal jurisdiction.  The jurisdiction is based upon the legal boundaries of a tribal community, just the same as a state has jurisdiction over crimes committed within its' boundaries.   Race does not factor in.  Race has nothing to do with it.  It is about boundaries.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:10:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And it does raise more than (0+ / 0-)

          a few eye brows when African Americans are tried and crimes in predominantly all white areas by all white juries.

          Not saying it cant be done. But I imagine it is watched extra closely by civil rites types.  As well it should.

          And I imagine a more than a few cases have gotten overturned (rightly or wrongly) for this very reason.

        •  You seem to have my comment exactly backwards (0+ / 0-)

          I think tribes should have jurisdiction over all crimes on tribal lands.  However, as you say, the issue has nothing to do with race so the diary's accusation of racism is misplaced

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 05:04:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "sound reasoning" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jennybravo
        when black people are tried by all white juries, this smacks of racist justice, and it's not racist to say so.

        When white people are tried in a where the victim and jury are all members of a community, but the accused is not, it is racist to point that out?

        Gotcha.

        First, saying something "smacks of racist justice" is different than "doesn't get a fair trial". Second, black defendants tried by all white juries happens all the time, and has done for hundreds of years. Only in some cases does this ever become an issue, or do people suggest it "smacks of racist justice". The government and the justice system flatly reject the premise that a black defendant - prima facie - "doesn't get a fair trial" solely on this basis.

        "Grassley's point that the jury make up is legitimate one, and the attempt to turn it into something racist is not well founded here."

        Grassley's point is not a legitimate one. He makes up a constitutional provision out of thin air and pretends as if juries not looking like the defendant is something the government (of which he is a prominent member) has ever found objectionable.

        And if there isn't "something racist here", then please cite for me the the prior instances of Grassley denouncing as unfair - and even unconstitutional - black defendants being tried before all white juries. Since this has occured far more often in this country than the hypothetical example he was discussing, you should have no problem finding numerous examples for me.

      •  is it okay with you (0+ / 0-)

        that Natives who are not tribal members can be tried by these same tribal courts and juries?  Juries which they would be excluded from because they are not tribal members.  Or is it just when it involves Non-Natives that it bothers you.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:13:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He ought to admit it ... Iowa is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gffish

      ... the one place I've ever seen a country store with "No dogs or Indians allowed" painted in whitewash on its display window.

      And that wasn't all that long ago.

    •  Hey at least we found a Republican in 2013 who can (0+ / 0-)

      Well republicans (at least in my lifetime) have always admitted racism exists, but, only against white people.

    •  Now of course there would not be any ..... (0+ / 0-)

      gilt because of how we treated Native Americans involved, would there?  They just did not appreciate our appropriating their lands and giving them small pox.  How ungrateful!

      Thus you assume that if your ancestors were treated badly you would be out for blood, than everybody else must also be biased.

      This does not say much for Grassley.

  •  Grassley is the same guy who said the president (8+ / 0-)

    supported 'Death Panels' you know kill grandma.  These people are terrified of being primaryed by a Tea Bagger more nuts than they are so they constantly appeal now to this ding bat group before this might happen to them.  Saying that indians can't give a white person a fair trial is i must admit a new low fro Grassley, but for the Tea Baggers it's just another day in Paranoid Nation.

  •  Custer Lives! (11+ / 0-)

    Only in the mind of these hair brained old farts of politicians.  Chucky has always been a dick and now he just shows what an old racist sounds like, of course he will say that he was misquoted as usual.  There it is for the world to see, Native People are second class citizens and they rank right up there with women and gays and liberals and all of the others that old shits like Chuck think that are the problems with his 1860 America.

  •  I completely agree. (11+ / 0-)

    Now let's make sure that only black people sit on a jury when black folks are accused of a crime. And if I'm ever in trouble, I demand that the entire jury be made up of norse-gaels who can speak at least a few sentences in Gaidhlig.

    [/snark]

    This isn't how a plural society works.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

    by OllieGarkey on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:16:12 PM PST

  •  If your whole worldview is based (11+ / 0-)

    on believing the cartoon character versions of other people who you either resent or fear are actually the people you resent or fear, this is how you think.

    Reverse racism.
    White people are the real victims of racism here.
    Blah. Blah. Blah.

    It's clear that he's thinking: A person of color, let alone a person of color with their own nation and tribal laws and courts no less, can't possibly give a white person who is accused of a crime by another person of color from their shared group a fair shake because... they not white.  So, a conspiracy of "The Other" where you can't win if you aren't one of the 'The Other".

    I'm betting Chuckie isn't bothered a bit by a black person going up against an all-white jury in a rural court though. Never crossed his mind for a minute that this was something he should think of.

    Nothing freaks out a white conservative more than the idea of that "The Other" would do what they would do. Shaft somebody who is different completely if they hold all the cards and they run the system.
    Also, I think we can't forget how much Movement Conservatism is based on projection of what the Movement Conservative would do/is doing.

    If Chuck Grassley was accused of a crime by a tribal member for something he did on reservation land, I'm sure he'd get a fairer trial than if you were a Native American accused of a crime in Chuckies home town, and Chuckie and a bunch of his buddies were to be your jury.

    I'd be concerned about my ability to get a fair shake from him, not the other way around.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:18:56 PM PST

    •  it is just another way of saying all We Indians (5+ / 0-)

      all look alike.  (rolls eyes).   i don't dont if Chuckie or McStrange has gotten worse in  their senior years but IMO when you start talking this kind of nonsense, some cognitive behavioral test should be given.  Senility in plain view

      We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

      by Vetwife on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:46:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A Lot Of It Is Paranoia (4+ / 0-)
      Nothing freaks out a white conservative more than the idea of that "The Other" would do what they would do. Shaft somebody who is different completely if they hold all the cards and they run the system.
      I've long held the view that much of the fear aimed at black folks from whites when it comes to crime, trial, juries and punishment stems from projection of guilt (and thus fear). In that world-view, if black folks are allowed to prosecute and potentially convict whites that they will remember how many whites either supported or assented to slavery, and fear revenge for that. The most obvious sign of that, to me, is from the whites who like to make statements such as, "slavery was ended over 100 years ago," etcetera.

      So, and I ask the people in this thread who are defending Sen. Grassley's point-of-view, how much of your fear, yes blatant and obvious fear behind the rhetoric is what I see, is driven, as Grassley's certainly is, by guilt over what whites did to NDNs over the years. In other words, good hearted people, why do you have no faith that NDN juries on rezs could be objective? Is that how little you think of natives, that all are shallow and revenge-minded? And, is that projection on your part? I think that it is. I think that Grassley's position is projection as well. If I lived in Iowa I would call him on it (even though I'm pretty sure his staff would just round file such a comment).

      "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

      by paz3 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:51:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with the first half of your first (0+ / 0-)

        paragraph

        However you go on basically stating that various minorities are to be trusted meanwhile white people are not.

        Yes white people are guilty of many racial persecutions.

        But your belief that these other ethnic groups are pure of heart and would not do the same is simply make believe.  In American history white people have been consistently on top and thus the ones responsible for the most significant persecutions.

        However this is not something unique about whites. There is nothing special that has made them extra evil.

        There are countless examples of every race and creed persecuting the shit outa eachother when given the opportunity.

        It is a fair fear to think that if the tables were reversed the persecutor would turn into the persecuted. This is backed up by historical record in various other nations. As such all people / ethnicity  should be treated equally under the law. Its feels dirty to have African Americans convinced under an all white jury. It should feel just as dirty in this situation.

        If your going to have blind faith in humanities ability to have objectivity over race when it comes to a fair trial, try not to single out white people and say everyone else will act fair but you, you people are not to be trusted.

        •  Clarification... (0+ / 0-)
          Is that how little you think of natives, that all are shallow and revenge-minded? And, is that projection on your part? I think that it is.
          Maybe you thought that I was condemning all whites; I just wasn't clear that my intent was calling out those who seemed to be exhibiting Sen. Grassley's paranoia.
          If you're going to have blind faith in humanity’s ability to have objectivity over race when it comes to a fair trial, try not to single out white people and say everyone else will act fair but you, you people are not to be trusted.
          I don't have blind faith in any race's potential objectivity. I just, again, was addressing those supporting Grassley's position.

          Then again, and this applies to all races or ethnicities, the dominant culture over Millennia have abused that position, and suppressed or murdered minorities, so I'm calling out whites in the US in that light as the dominant culture of the day.

          "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

          by paz3 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:57:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Reverse racism is not less common (0+ / 0-)

      it is less effective.

      Lets be blunt. Racism is not a white thing. Its not a black thing. Its a people thing. A certain amount of any group is going to be racist. This should be minimized, but as of now its a reality.

      Pretending that individuals or actions can somehow not be racist against white people, is in itself racist (yes I am implying your beliefs are racist)

      In this nation at this point in time racism from white people is considered more problematic. Reasons for this are the fact that again at this time in this nation white people have more money , influence and are the majority. As such they have more ability to persecute people.

      That being said its a stupid idea to refuse to admit that if the tables are turned that a white person can not be persecuted.

      If its racist against one group of people ,its racist against another group.

      Prosecuting one person against a jury  comprised entirely of a single other ethnic group is considered unethical. As it should be.

      •  Definitions In Question. (0+ / 0-)

        I came to understand the definition of racism - 20 to 30 years ago - as when the dominant racial group in any culture promoted and implemented the belief that another group was inferior and/or undeserving, and worked to implement that belief through policy and unspoken repression. In that understanding, reverse racism cannot exist in the US, at this time in our history. YMMV.

        I have yet to hear anyone authoritatively refute that definition. What many folks now describe as "reverse racism" is properly defined as prejudice.

        The two terms - racism and racial prejudice - are often conflated, and I attribute that to sloppy use of proper syntax. People forget, or absorb what the Trad Media says.

        Maybe my beliefs are racist per your definition of that term, but I am an insider when it comes to speaking out against white racism - and prejudice - because I am as white as they come, and my Father's side of the family was both prejudiced, and racist. Yes, at the same time!

        "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

        by paz3 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:15:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Three disagreements (0+ / 0-)

          1) Assuming your definition of racism is correct. You fail to address/consider the fact the dominant racial group changes depending on your situation even within the United States.

          This exact topic points out to this weakness in this view. In the situation currently being discussed the assumption is that the white defendant is no longer a member of the dominant racial group. So even by your definition, racism  would be possible against the defendant.

          2) Your definition can be your own. But it is not what is used in the English language.

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          You   go on to specifically that you feel confusion arises from people failing to note the difference between racism and racial prejudice. The dictionary defines  racism as racial prejudice .

          rac·ism noun ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
          2: racial prejudice or discrimination

          My personal definition of racism. Giving a social, legal or professional preference  to anyone based on their ethnic background.

          3) Ignoring points 1 and 2.

          The implication of your idea is that somehow a person in the minority can not harm a person in the majority via their racism.

          All it takes it one person to hurt a second person via their racist actions.

          A black boss can fire a hispanic employee because of their race. A female supervisor can accost male employee.

  •  Seriously-- (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slowbutsure, walkshills, kyril, SaraBeth

    these people need to turn off the microphone and leave the stage.

    Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

    by lyvwyr101 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:21:17 PM PST

  •  My Grandfather was a racist and was (7+ / 0-)

    surprised again and again and again when people called him on it in the early 70's.  We were lost on an Indian reservation and passed a man walking.  My Grandfather pulls over and the nice man walks over to the car.  My Grandfather says "Do you speak English?".  The nice man says "How" and walks off.  Once again I sink down below the window so no one can see me.

    Someone my age recently made a reference to the movie "The Legend of Billy Jack" and the impact that movie made on her.  When one is at the age that one desperately wants to be cool and that movie comes out, it makes a big impact!

    ...Son, those Elephants always look out for themselves. If you happen to get a crumb or two from their policies, it's a complete coincidence. -Malharden's Dad

    by slowbutsure on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:57:16 PM PST

  •  Republicans suddenly very concerned about the (8+ / 0-)

    rights of the accused! When the accused is black or brown, it's all about throwing the ooks at them. But when a white man is on trial, suddenly the rights of the accused becomes so important.

  •  There seems to be a deep well stream of fear (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jennybravo, salmo, kyril, SaraBeth

    by white Republicans (especially elected ones) toward Native Americans. Maybe I should say a deep well stream of guilt.

    Where does this come from?

    The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

    by walkshills on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:08:14 PM PST

    •  Some Examples? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC, Desert Scientist
      There seems to be a deep well stream of fear by white Republicans (especially elected ones) toward Native Americans. Maybe I should say a deep well stream of guilt.

      Where does this come from?

      How about the murder of Crazy Horse? The Trail of Tears? The genocide at Wounded Knee? The Washington Redskins? Don't tell me that is not still around!

      "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

      by paz3 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:56:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any and all of those might contribute (0+ / 0-)

        but I really don't think modern Republicans exhibiting this have any idea what happened at Ft. Robinson or the powerful history of Crazy Horse, the legacy of the Trail of Tears (and they could have read Mari Sandoz for greater understanding of both of those), understand at all how gratuitous Wounded Knee really was (both of them, really, with all the background murders that led up to WKII) and why Redskins is insulting in so many ways.

        What I was feeling was something deeper, that is wider, more pervasive yet without such solid historical ties (for I would bet they don't want to know the history). The same is almost true with Blacks, but we killed and stole so much more from the Native Americans, which is saying a lot.

        What I'm asking is how this is passed on in manner greater than transference (unconscious emotional transfers). Is there some tangential ideology there, something taught and passed on?

        I can see the ostensible reasons but it is the persistence over time that sorta of defies my logic, if that makes sense.

        The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

        by walkshills on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:35:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  White Privilege? (0+ / 0-)
          Any and all of those [events] might contribute but I really don't think modern Republicans exhibiting this have any idea what happened at Ft. Robinson or the powerful history of Crazy Horse, the legacy of the Trail of Tears [snip], understand at all how gratuitous Wounded Knee really was (both of them, really, with all the background murders that led up to WKII) and why Redskins is insulting in so many ways.
          What you say about the 'persistence' of the distrust of so-called minorities is thought provoking. I have to acknowledge that my examples that I feel are among many driving white unease, or cultural collective guilt, probably are little known, and are part of a history (aside from the Washington Redskins matter) unknown by many, if not most, contemporary white folks.

          Perhaps the (often unspoken) ideology that is passed on is white privilege, and anything that challenges that is seen as suspect. It was passed on to me as a child by my white, societally privileged biological father, and I had to consciously reject this thinking as a young adult in my twenties.

          I did, fortunately, have a stepdad who was Irish, Jewish and Shoshone, and he taught me a lot by example that caught on later, something I feel compelled to bear witness to: neither my mom or step-dad (who really was my dad, functionally), ever spoke ill of any group or individual on the basis of something that they were born with - such as race, ethnicity or handicap. 'Children live what they learn.'

          "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

          by paz3 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:39:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Aren't tribal lands sovereign in any case? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SaraBeth, Tonedevil, jennybravo

    I know the legality of it is dicier than thinking of them simply as our own versions of San Marino, but my understanding is still that it's more like "commit a crime in Germany, be tried under German law" than Grassley's assertion that it's just a place with the wrong jury pool.

    “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?” - Rumi

    by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 02:58:53 AM PST

    •  no, in fact (4+ / 0-)

      under several Supreme Court cases (especially Duro v Reina and Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe), tribal jurisdiction is largely limited to tribal members only, even on tribal lands.  

      Which is why this is a problem.  State authorities can't or won't enforce laws on reservations, and the tribes don't have effective means to take action either, which means that the perpetrators get away with crimes because of a jurisdictional gap.  VAWA is designed to fix this gap.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:31:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature

        The jury problem should be dealt with to give as fair a trial as possible, but as things stand now Native American women who are raped on the reservation have little recourse.  That is also not fair.

        Should the fear of an unfair trial that has not happened yet stop any law enforcement against such crimes?  If Grassley is so concerned why doesn't he work for a fairer system all around?

  •  Teapublicans are filled with fear.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Magick Maven

    The fear of older, white, (mostly) male Americans who are afraid of having what they have done to minorities around the world done to them if they ever lose power.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

    by SaraBeth on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 03:07:43 AM PST

  •  This is wrong on many levels. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Penny GC

    He can't vote yes on VAWA because "Indians" (using the term misused by 15th century culture destroyers) might act like White Juries (nearly) Always Do To Non White Defendants, in contrast to currently how White Juries (nearly) Always Treat White Defendants who rape women on tribal lands?

    Seems the problem might be what happens to brown people, whether victim or defendant, when we allow twelve random White Americans to practice "American Justice".

    The Senator is seeking to prevent a single White Man from experiencing an injustice that, by his own admission, has never occurred, therefore the actual injustice following a criminal act should be continued against the majority of the people in a democracy?

    The problem is not a tribal justice system. Its the American justice system that is the problem.

    Please proceed Senator.

    •  This diary should be on the front page (5+ / 0-)

      where it would have a better chance of being read and commented on by someone who actually knows where current law stands on the treatment of someone who commits a crime on tribal lands.  If I break into someone's home and steal something, then I'm caught by tribal police, under what court system will I be tried?  If I'm in a bar on a reservation, get drunk and hit and kill someone while driving on the reservation, under whose court system am I tried for manslaughter?  If I'm in a fight with my roommate, a native, and our home is on tribal land , under whose jurisdiction am I tried for assault?  Wouldn't violence against a woman be handled the same way?  

      We need input from people who know more about how cases against non-native people who commit crimes on tribal lands are now handled.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:50:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And he knows this because he has seen it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian

    firsthand over and over, where the majority jury rules in a racist decision over a minority, and....

    I guess.

    Yep, another bit of classic GOP projection....how else would they know for sure that the "others" will act along their racial lines?

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:07:00 AM PST

  •  HERE'S A NOVEL IDEA FOR ALL NON-INDIAN GUYS... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian, Batya the Toon, Tonedevil

    and hey, a bit of advice for us all...

    DON'T (GO ONTO THE RESERVATION AND) VIOLATE A WOMAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:09:10 AM PST

    •  But if you're 'Indian' it's totally fine. (0+ / 0-)

      Right?

      Your comment was non-constructive on many levels.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:58:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent advice on the whole (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wednesday Bizzare

      buuut "you'll be fine if you never commit the crime" doesn't really address the question of whether one is getting a fair trial or not.

      If we turn this around for a moment ... historically, there have been cases of men of color falsely accused of assaulting white women and unjustly condemned by white juries.  (As others have already pointed out, this is probably why Grassley assumes that the same thing could and would happen to a white man facing an Indian jury.)

      "Leave white women alone and you'll be fine" would not really have been the best advice for that situation.

  •  Jurisdiction... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, jennybravo

    Certain major crimes (including rape and sexual abuse) fall under Federal jurisdiction when they take place on an Indian reservation.  Tribal courts are limited to a one-year sentence with a $5,000 fine.  

    As for the makeup of a jury in Indian country:  many Indian reservations and national territories are physically extensive, so the jury pool is already largely Indian.  

     

    "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

    by Yamaneko2 on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:17:44 AM PST

  •  How about an all white jury for Indians or blacks? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    Never seemed to bother Republicans in the least...

  •  Is he thinking about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    the atrocities whites committed against the natives and fears retaliation?  That might be behind his words.  Maybe he is thinking that if natives had done this to whites, the whites would be out for revenge.  He's projecting his own feelings - HE would seek revenge, perhaps, so how can he trust natives not to act in the same manner?

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:03:48 AM PST

    •  This is projecting on your part (0+ / 0-)

      But it'd also be silly to think there's not resentment on the part of some natives toward historical treatment.

      http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

      by DAISHI on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:10:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course it is - it is assumption or speculation, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        which is may not be good to do but it occurred to me so I spoke it.  I teach at a native american college and grew up in a native community.  I kind of know what's on many of their minds because we have incredible discussions.  I won't speak for them, though.  They are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

        being mindful and keepin' it real

        by Raggedy Ann on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:33:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The accounts of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    http://law2.umkc.edu/....

    If anyone here remembers who this Native American is, this is the textbook example of Racism against anyone not white in
    courtrooms in America from the beginning of this nations birth.

    Old men tell same old stories

    by Ole Texan on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:07:41 AM PST

  •  Wait a minute... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian

    We've seen it a million times where an African-American doesn't get a fair trial from an all-white jury. Would a white guy get a fair trial from a tribal court? The racial dynamic is the same as it was in the Scottsboro case or in the initial Rodney King case. Maybe the tribal jury would be fair, and maybe they wouldn't be.

    The problem is that Grassley is assuming there won't be a fair trial, and is using that debatable assumption to justify opposing the greater good that the VAWA as a whole represents.

    My question about the tribal court isn't about racism, although let's be honest and face facts, that's a possibility. My question is whether or not the process is fair, and if the right of appeal exists for a defendant who might be convicted. Are the rules of evidence, etc., the same in a tribal court as they would be in a state court? Does the defendant have the same ability to defend himself, have the same right to counsel?

    If the procedure in tribal court is just, identical to that of state courts, then it's wrong to merely assume tribal courts will be unfair to white people. They may be, but as a matter of law it's wrong to take that for granted. As long as a right of appeal exists, as long as the procedure and rules of evidence and the like are fair in a tribal court, it's unreasonable to object to using tribal courts.

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:57:51 AM PST

    •  Agreed; the point is the process. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Korkenzieher

      Including the part of the process, I would point out, where the lawyers get to vet potential members of the jury and ask them questions.  I don't know whether that works the same in tribal court either, or whether they have anything that might provide a similar function.

      •  From what I have read (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        Provisions of VAWA require that Tribes meet all Constitutional requirements including the right to free representation by an attorney.  If they do not, then no jurisdiction is allowed. And it only covers domestic violence and "dating violence" and the right of Tribal courts to hear cases involving violations of protection orders.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 01:28:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's a partial point to be made here. (5+ / 0-)

    So let's not dismiss it. Even if there's racism involved in the statement, there would be a problem if an all white jury convicted a black man. In fact there has been, and will be more. The issue needs consideration. A jury needs to be a diverse mix, in order to guarantee fairness. I mean just by the numbers a person is more likely to be judged guilty if they don't have a jury with some of their own ethnicity on board.

    We see this with death penalties for blacks
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/...

    We see this with general trials that involve at least one person from the member's ethnicity, leading to higher rates of 'not guilty
    http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/...

    Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless of where his comment stems from, there's an important point there.

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

    by DAISHI on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:09:24 AM PST

    •  Do you somehow believe that ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennybravo

      ... a reservation jury could ever be composed of people who don't share other ethnicities with various societal groups? Today's Indian people tend to share multiple ethnicities with other groups and, frankly, it's tough to find all that many bloods anymore on any rez.

      Your baby-tossing comment argues for questioning any prospective juror in any court on any ethnicities he or she may be carrying around and that includes black people.

      •  You're stretching the point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton

        To dismiss it. People identify issues of race in ways that go beyond blood lines, black people include, white people included. Everyone does it. So that all at a wash, we still know that people of similar blood and heritage are more likely to convict guilty if there's not someone of a distinct identifiable trait with the accused.

        http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

        by DAISHI on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:10:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Comments like this keep missing the obvious -- (2+ / 0-)

      If Indian reservations as such did not exist (but the people still lived there), then by law the jury pool for any crime committed in the area, drawn as it must be from the people who actually live in the district, would be vast-majority Indian ANYWAY.  That's how it's supposed to work.  You have no right to a trial by a jury of people just like you, and there is no right to exclude people simply because in aggregate they are too much like the victim.

      Whatever constitutional issues there may be here -- and I don't know, I'm no expert, let's stipulate that they do exist -- there's no reason to assume any practical difference in the jury pool or manner of prosecution between what VAWA proposes and if the reservations did not exist at all.  And as things stand the prosecution simply does not happen AT ALL.  That's not acceptable.

  •  Mean old white men automatically assume... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gffish

    ...that everyone else is just as mean, racist, sexist, and ready to commit judicial travesties as they are.

    Same reason they opposed gays in the military (OMG big tough gay Marines might do to ME what I've been doing to women all this time!)

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:44:17 AM PST

  •  Chuck Grassley should be less concerned with (0+ / 0-)

    the racial make-up of juries in tribal courts and more concerned with the fact that many non-Native American men have been raping Native American women and getting away with it.

  •  Also the juries in Indian Res (0+ / 0-)

    Arent they following Federal state and local laws in order to establish a verdict? Its not like they are using or relying on "Native/Indian" laws whatever that may be.

  •  Legal jurisdictions based on race are racist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    What is your point?

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:36:39 PM PST

  •  Even more unfair! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maybeeso in michigan

    A jury with democrats? They'll never judge a republican fairly!

    A jury with straight people? They'll never judge a gay person fairly!

    A jury with conservationists? They'll never judge an industry fairly!

    A jury with sick people? They'll never judge a medical issue fairly!

    A jury with intelligent and reasonable people? They'll never judge a republican fairly!

    "Rock is overpowered, but Paper is perfect." -Scissors

    by kamrom on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:08:55 PM PST

  •  .....You do realize that this same argument (0+ / 0-)

    is used  against all white juries being used to convict Indian, Native American, Black and Hispanic defendants?

    It is a valid statement that a jury should be a diverse, representative body of your peers.  

    •  Would you agree to a law (0+ / 0-)

      that would require at least 2 or 3 jury members to be of the same ethnic background as the defendant?

      ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

      by jennybravo on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:44:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I had to think about that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger

        My answer is no. However as part of a jury selection process the defendant I think has the right to point out "hey this seems a little odd"

        To be perfectly honest I think the prosecution would want at least 2 or 3 from the same ethnic background. For the exact reason if they do not have a few it does seem very suspicious and opens up a whole need area for appeals.

        Such cases are deserving of extra scrutiny if they do occur.

        I also do think that defendants right now do have the right to seek a "change of venue" due to potential racism due to an overly homogeneous area.

    •  if the community in which the crime takes place (0+ / 0-)

      is 100% white, and the trial has not been moved from a more diverse location, then an all white jury may be inevitable.

      But that is very rarely the case. In most cases, the community in which a non-white person is accused of a crime has other non-white people. So an all-white jury is in fact inappropriate and non-representative.

  •  There is one way of (0+ / 0-)

    dealing with an Indian court if you are not a native American. Do not abuse you native American spouse and the court will never mess with you

  •  projection (0+ / 0-)

    is something republicans excel at.

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 08:17:52 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site