It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.”
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
How is this in any way controversial or non-nonsensical? I mean, I'm sorry, but it make sense.
If a non-Native is accused of attacking a Native, do you not think that a jury full of Natives is going to be biased towards believing their tribe member?
I mean, it's really no different than letting people be tried by an Amish religious jury or by Sharia law if it were to occur in a dedicated Islamic community.
So what does this guy want? Racially segregated juries?
I mean statistically non-whites get longer jail sentences than whites for the same crime.
And he should probably try reading the constitution so he knows what it says about jury's.
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.
Originally posted by Pixiefyre
While the Native American Reservations are I suppose you might say like islands amidst the US, they are not properties of the United States, and they have their own laws and legal systems just as any foreign country has.