tvc184

Things always remind me of jokes….. After Osama bin Ladin was killed, he awaited his 72 virgins, promised to those that waged jihad. Instead he was confronted by George Washington who began beating him with a cane. He left but immediately Patrick Henry appeared and started doing the same. Then came Thomas Jefferson, then Robert E. Lee and on it went. OBL asked, what’s going on here as he continued to get the crap beaten out of him. He heard, you must have misunderstood, it was 72 Virginians.

The mistake is people that thought they were named after a large feline….

Probably everyone knows the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

Everybody knows it is wrong. It is sometimes easy to tolerate a transgression when it is “your team”.

I think “already planned” if the key. Maybe you missed it. The trip is scheduled and Disney will get their money (or may have already gotten it) whether or not any protest shirt is worn. While there however, why not stick a thumb in Mickey Mouse’s eye? An even better touch might be a selfie with Mickey wearing the PNG shirt…. Maybe with Cinderella’s Castle in the background.

They did get away with it. You can’t and won’t get anything against Disney. People line up to pay $100 must to get in the gate. A family of 4 who stay all day, eating a couple of meals, will probably cost $2,000. What do you suggest as a blowback against them? Maybe 25 people from this area go somewhere else and they move 5 minutes of operating expenses for the year? They wanted to wash their hands to show that they are woke. They are entitled and they did so. Nothing will change for them and probably nothing will change for PNG. Both sides have said their piece and hopefully it is over.

However…. Going by my legal experience and knowledge (which I think is pretty good in this area) and by a comment (I think by Chief Justice Roberts) during the Trump impeachment), it can be whatever. During an impeachment/removal trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over it. (Again) I believe it was the Chief Justice who said when asked what was a high crime or misdemeanor, the response was that it was completely up to the House during an impeachment. In all aspects of laws, definitions are everything. It can be from common language (typically defined in a dictionary), specifically defined or statutory/written law, common law or case law. As an example, “premises”’ is generally defined in the dictionary as any buildings and its land. In the Texas Penal Code under carrying a handgun under an LTC it says that it is a crime to carry on the premises of a school. So if you were out shopping and legally carrying a handgun under and LTC and you picked up your kid on the way home in the parking lot of the school, you are then a felon? No because…. (c) In this section: (4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. So even though the common and dictionary meaning of premises includes buildings and land, criminally in carrying a handgun under an LTC, it only means buildings. Why is that important? To say that is huge would be an understatement or the difference between a noncriminal act and a felony. As we say in teaching the Penal Code, to check any word or phrase in a law we look for in the order: a. The phrase “in this section” b. The phrase “in this chapter” c. PC Section 1.07 (definitions applied through all Texas laws unless otherwise defined as above) d. The dictionary. So the example of premises under an LTC, it says in this section premises means….. What does that have to do with impeachment and the Constitution? High crimes and misdemeanors is not defined as justification for impeachment. Again I believe it was Chief Justice Roberts who made the statement that it was entirely political and could be defined in whatever the House and later the Senate wished. The separation of powers in the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to make rules for the other two branches. They can only interpret the Constitution as written and that definition is not written. . The reason that was brought up was that people supporting Trump, including me, said that the claimed collusion was lawful for the president so it could not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor. Basically even if he did everything as accused, it is still not grounds for impeachment. That’s when CJ Roberts made the comment that high crime or misdemeanor was not defined and could be whatever political reason they wished. After all, we might assume that high crime means felony but what about the undefined “misdemeanor”? So when asked, what could a president be impeached for? Whatever the House wishes. That is likely why it takes a 2/3 vote. You could impeach a president every week but unless 67 senators agree, it is meaningless. Under the Obama administration, the Senate Democrats made a mockery of the cloture rule for a filibuster. The Dems didn’t have enough votes to pass Obama federal judge appointments so they changed the longstanding rules with what is called the nuclear option. Mitch McConnell told them that was a mistake and they would pay for it in the future. They did when Trump was able to get three Supreme Court justices without enough votes to get past the filibuster. It is my opinion that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats made a mockery of impeachment when they twice impeached Trump, once within about a week of him leaving office.. Just like their vote on the filibuster rules, they might in the future be paid back for the silliness. I don’t really expect an impeachment of Joe and the #$& but what could it legally be for if the Republicans take back the House and so desired? Anything.

You quoted “legally” in your opening but summed up your post with this… ”Now, the question is, how bad does it have to get before something like this becomes reality.” I answered that.

So will the moderates not vote Democrat since that is exactly what the Dems did for 4 years including trying to impeach Trump after he had lost the election and within days of him leaving office?

The part where you believe that it is even remotely possible that maybe 12-15 Democrat senators will play along.

They seem to name everything they are involved in as “Indian”. They may “prefer” another term but that hardly makes it racist or derogatory. If I had to choose I would probably prefer to be called white instead of caucasian which sounds like a mountain range but my preference doesn’t make either racist. My favorite example is a “Native American” protest group formed in 1968 to fight for their rights and named it… American Indian Movement. [Hidden Content] I think much of the claims are by people looking to be offended. Many times it is not from Indians but people looking to show their sensitivity by claiming racism for another group. Of course much of the accusation from Indians isn’t racism but now “cultural appropriation”. When Blacks straighten their hair, is that European cultural appropriation? Colored contacts? Did Abba or the British rock invasion appropriate American rock which was appropriated from Black blues? Should Eminem quit entertaining because his rap was appropriated from hip hop? This 250 year melting pot called America sometimes seems to want to go back to segregation or a feeling of “please notice me!”. I could care less if PNG changes their name. Back when I was school some of us Nederlanders called them PNG River Rats so I think them “forced” (politically, not legally) might be seem wrong but somewhat humorous. But obviously the choice is theirs. They didn’t choose the mascot out of any racism or intent to capitalize on a culture. They didn’t nor do they need permission. in my opinion…..

Yes.

Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn’t issue statutory law. They can only rule on the constitutionality of signed law. What she will have in most situations is a strong ally in Sotomayor. Sotomayor is the epitome of the definition of an activist judge. Looking at decisions like Kansas v. Glover in 2019 shows Sotomayor following feelings and not the law or Constitution. Sotomayor in that case was the losing side of an 8-1 decision. The 8-1 dissent isn’t a big deal but you have to read the justification for the vote. When Kagan, Ginsberg and Bryer side with the “conservative” justices in what to me should seem like a logical conclusion, it really shows your prejudice to try to rationalize the opposite. Sotomayor will probably soon gain a strong ally.

If America means 6% of the population.

If Indian is offensive, why are several of their organizations and services named Indian? It would be like a guy saying redneck is offensive. Then he goes on to tell you that he is the president of the redneck fan club, gets his insurance from Redneck Insurance and he is a proud follower of his high school mascot, Rednecks.

Because they probably got a complaint and they were trying to wash their hands of it and make PNG the scapegoat.

Maybe you could realize that the Constitution is not criminal law. It is guidelines for the federal government.

Like or agree with?

I guess it’s a good thing that PNG is not in Canada where they could be charged with a hate crime.

Who is “their”? Public in general? Forbes? TMZ?

It is somewhat comical that you use the word detractors toward PNG supporters. It is the people who are criticizing PNG who are the detractors, not the other way around.

Palo Duro HS in Amarillo has the mascot Dons. Dons in Spanish meaning head of the household (how sexist!) and the way it was used, like a member of royalty in the Mexican culture. Did anybody in Mexico give that school permission to use the term Don? Strange (maybe) is that their yearbook is called Conquistador. The Conquistadors were from Spain and conquered the Native Americans in South America (wiping out some tribes) but it was the Mexican dons that defeated them to create a free Mexico. So a HS in Texas celebrates a group of Spanish that invaded and wiped out indigenous Native Americans by naming their yearbook Conquistador. Then they name their mascot after the people that beat the Conquistadors but who were the descendants from them, the people that invaded, dominated, wiped out and in some cases likely enslaved some Native Americans. Not to distinguish between degrees of outrage but what is more offensive? A team that uses the generic term Indian and celebrates it as an honorable culture or a team that celebrates a group of people that wiped out some Indians?

What is racist? Is it the name or is it the phrase scalp ‘em? If it is the phrase scalp ‘em, can they simply remove that from their tradition and we can all have a group hug? Now the can their traditional cheer be… “I N D I A N S, Beat ‘em Indians, eat ‘em!!”

It isn’t my logic. I would never justify the team name Indians because a chief gave the name and said they could do so. If the justification of the mascot is a letter from a Cherokee Chief in 1980, yes that is flawed logic. It is flawed because they were not named the Indians in 1980 and they needed no approval. In truth decades after a team mascot was created, an Indian Chief came along and said, hey I like it. Some people opposing the name are using a current Cherokee Chief as not liking it. Is that based on the fact that Indians is derogatory or that a previous Cherokee Chief gave a letter of agreement, so the current one withdrew it? Let’s assume the current chief changes his mind or is replaced by another. PNG then gets a letter of approval saying that we made a mistake, now we appreciate the portrayal of Indians. Does that all of a sudden end this is controversy? If it does not, then why even bring up the current Chief’s opinion. There is a high school team in Texas named the Cherokees and another name the Comanches. Can you imagine that the Cherokees played the Comanches? Oh my gosh!!! Those teams did not use a generic term for a group of people, Indians. They actually used the name of Indian tribes that still exist today. Did they get permission? It seems like much of this ado comes from a letter sent by an Indian chief. So if the first chief never came along in 1980, would this controversy even exist? So yes I agree it is flawed logic to use what a Cherokee chief said 40 years ago but if that is true, is it also flawed to worry about what one says today?

Is that all people or just Indians?