Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

[Lakhota]

By Scott Keyes

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 with a patriotic title.

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.”

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.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

More: Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

 

[buckeye45_73]

hahaha thats the liberal argument about blacks.....about time it's being boomerranged.

I love it when republicans use liberal tactics and boy how the libtards dont like it.

 

[RosieS]

Well, that's too bad what Chuck Grassley thinks. The res is it's own nation.

Go to Mexico, get a Mexican trial if you break Mexican laws. No sense complaining about it.

Same with the reservation....break local or US law, get a Native American trial.

I wonder if ol' Chuck is getting a tad bit senile.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Rozman]

I wouldn't feel comfortable having an all black jury...

 

[Rozman]

Lots of folks out there with an axe to grind.

 

[Lakhota]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BRpjxtLrTcE]Sen. Grassley doesn't think Native Americans can hold fair trials - YouTube[/ame]

 

[buckeye45_73]

lakhota still the same....again he doesnt complain when blacks or any minority groups dont want all white juries....

 

[uscitizen]

Lots of folks out there with an axe to grind.

And they should not complain about an all white jury for a black?

 

[tinydancer]

Despite the liberal swarming of the net today cherry picking Senator Grassley's position on the VAWA Bill and his concerns, the truth is out there.

He's being portrayed as a racist out there (what else is new?) nothing could be farther from the truth.

I went to the Senator's website and got the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.

In a letter to the President. Not Salon, not Think Progress, not Huff Po.

The truth. Not lib propaganda.

Here's part of their concerns. It's an excellent letter.


Support for Alternative VAWA Bill

From the letter to President Obama:

For instance, the majority insisted on giving Indian tribal courts criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian Americans for the first time in our country’s history. The committee held one hearing on reauthorizing this bill and it devoted no attention to exploring how this provision would operate. As a result, the committee described this provision in only four sentences in its report on the legislation. We all recognize that domestic violence rates in Indian country are too high. Both the Committee reported bill and the Hutchison-Grassley substitute contain provisions to address the problem.

But the majority cannot explain why expanding the power of tribal courts would be effective or how this would work. Do the tribes have the resources and expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution? How would the federal courts’ caseload be affected by all the new habeas petitions that would necessarily be filed if this became law? What changes would occur in the existing relationships between federal, state, and tribal law enforcement?

The majority has no idea whether this provision would help matters or not because it simply did not give this issue any careful attention. Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has raised several constitutional issues that would be posed by this provision as it was reported from the Committee. These include due process, equal protection, Fifth Amendment grand jury and double jeopardy issues, as well as Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and a jury trial by one’s peers.

And

Mr. President, I ask to include the relevant portions of the CRS analysis in the record.

But to address the real problems of domestic violence among Native Americans, our substitute would permit tribes to petition for protective orders against non-Indians in federal court.

The committee-reported bill did not respect due process in the area of accusations against college students. Of course, allegations of sexual assault on campus should be taken as seriously as anywhere else. But reputations can be ruined by false charges, so it is important that fairness in adjudications occur. As a practical matter, the Committee reported bill imposed on these campus proceedings the standards of proof issued in a controversial proposed regulation by the Department of Education. They were very weak and unfair.

Additionally, under the committee reported bill, if the campus disciplinary authority exonerated the innocent even under the weak standard of proof, the accuser could appeal for another round of proceedings. That just is not fair.

At the last minute, the majority has changed the first but not the second of these provisions. Now, the investigation must be fair and impartial. That is progress. This change should have been made much earlier. But the bill still allows a person who has been found innocent after a fair investigation to be pursued again at the victim’s request. Our substitute eliminates that unfairness.

Support for Alternative VAWA Bill

 

[tinydancer]

By Scott Keyes

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 with a patriotic title.

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.”

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.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

More: Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

Lakhota why don't you discuss what you just posted. This is a discussion board. All this is is a cut and paste from an article.

Now I've put up a counter to this article you have just thrown at the board. With my own comments.

Let's have a discussion.

 

[tinydancer]

Well, I'll begin the discussion Lakhota.

I waded thru a lot of cherry picked articles on google just to witness the left wing propaganda machine at work. It was most remarkable.

I needed hip waders. All the same talking points and no one addressing the true subject matter at hand.

I find this more than disturbing. I find it appalling.

If you care about VAWA you really should take the time to read Sen. Grassley's letter to the President.

He's a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with grave concerns at the way the current bill is structured.

I think he expresses the concerns quite eloquently.

What do you think Lakhota?

ETA: Just so you understand his credentials this is from the letter

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Hutchison-Grassley substitute to S.1925, Violence Against Women Act
Thursday, April 26, 2012

 

[tinydancer]

I'll keep checking back in

 

[whitehall]

It's the ultimate in irony that Bill Clinton signed the VAWA while he was accused of 1st degree rape and his wife was the head of a sleazy network of government agencies assigned with the mission of ruining the lives of women who accused the president of violating the act he signed into law. Hillary headed up the legendary "bimbo eruption squad" that liberal reporters giggled about. Now in another example of irony the democrat party wants to extend the unConstitutional VAWA to men who pretend to be women.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By Scott Keyes

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 with a patriotic title.

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.”

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.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

More: Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

The Supreme Court seems to agree with him. They have specifically ruled, more than once, that it violates a defendants rights to be tried by a jury when an effort is made by the state to exclude members of the defendant's race.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, that's too bad what Chuck Grassley thinks. The res is it's own nation.

Go to Mexico, get a Mexican trial if you break Mexican laws. No sense complaining about it.

Same with the reservation....break local or US law, get a Native American trial.

I wonder if ol' Chuck is getting a tad bit senile.

Regards from Rosie

That would be a legitimate argument, if it was true. In realty Indian reservations are not sovereign territory, they are subject to the laws of both the state and the federal government. They have a limited sovereignty that allows them to handle their own affairs, but they cannot, for example, decide to grow marijuana for export like they could if they were truly a separate nation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lots of folks out there with an axe to grind.

And they should not complain about an all white jury for a black?

How do you know they don't? Most of them are lawyers, they understand the law actually requires diverse juries.

 

[Stephanie]

oh man, I'll have to try and get my panites in a bunch...

 

[Jroc]

What the hells the deal with Cantor? More establishment republican stupidity

GOP House Schedules Vote on Bill That Will Strip Constitutional Rights from Americans Tried by Indian Tribes

The House Republican leadership has scheduled a floor vote on Thursday on a Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act that, if enacted, would strip constitutional rights from Americans prosecuted by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence.

The bill was sponsored by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and opposed by the conservative bloc in the Republican Senate Conference--as well as by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senate conservatives Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin all voted against it.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the language in this Senate bill, if enacted, means that "the Constitution will not apply" to Americans tried by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence. These Americans, according to the CRS, will not have recourse to the Bill of Rights.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who also voted against the bill, and who co-sponsored an unsuccessful amendment that would have fixed the constitutional problem regarding Indian tribes, explained the issue in Senate floor debate.

"The problem with the underlying bill is simple: It denies constitutional rights to certain American citizens," said Cornyn. "I am stunned that some of my colleagues are okay with this. I am stunned that some self-proclaimed civil liberties organizations apparently have no objection to a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution. They believe somehow that Congress could legislate away constitutional rights. It cannot. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and no act of Congress can violate the Constitution and stand. Constitutional rights should not and are not negotiable. They are not bargaining chips in a Washington parlor game.

GOP House Schedules Vote on Bill That Will Strip Constitutional Rights from Americans Tried by Indian Tribes | CNS News

 

[Bigfoot]

The guy is right. A jury full of Native Americans would not be unbiased towards a white person. I'm married to a Native American gal, a tribal member.

 

[LAfrique]

By Scott Keyes

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 with a patriotic title.

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.”

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.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

More: Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As a peson thinketh, so is he/she.