• ryper@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I’m pretty sure this supreme court would rule that people don’t have a right to electricity, or even water. They’ll probably be totally ok with people losing internet access as punishment for crossing media owners.

      • tomenzgg@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Besides your point but this is the aspect about Gorsuch that I can’t seem to make internally consistent. He almost always rules in terms of native rights – even when, I think, it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle – yet is more than happy to rule as a conservative on all other times and support “industry” and big business (even when it stretches his supposed originalist guiding principle).

        I know that nothing necessitates a person to act logically and most act from emotion, more than anything, but most people, I find, have a relative reason they think they’re being logically consistent but I can’t seem to suss even that out, with regards to him.

      • jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        to be fair the treaty never specified anything about water, and the Navajo nations should have had better lawyers or better guerilla warfare tactics if they wanted more negotiating power.