9th Circuit Court strikes again.
 

This isn't technically about politics, but it is definitely about the idea of being politically correct so this is where the thread shall land.

Disclaimer: i haven't researched the organization that published this or the individuals in the suit yet. i post this for consumption in the cellar.

9th Circuit Court

i don't personally see how a court can rule that private property cannot be used in this manner because it holds a "cultural significance" to a group of people. the significance it holds is that it is sacred land in their belief system. at the sam time thecourt rules to remove a cross from a memorial area, so as not to conflict with the establishment clause.

how is one acceptable and the other not?

Someone needs to remove their head from lower end. Maybe the Duck hunting buddy can clear this up?

Okay, I'll bite...

When you say that the 9th Circuit Court "strikes again," what do you mean? Have they done something before? I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say, but what the hell...

sorry syc, it's just kind of an arizona thing. some of the cowboy hat-wearing people are always bitching about the 9th circuit. *redneck accent* "them bastards up in sanfran always effing with our country..."

that kind of thing. so it was just a reference to that. sometimes i forget that most cellarites are living around philthadelphia.

edit: "philthadelphia" is not an insult, it is a reference to the roots

But rather than advancing any particular religion, safeguarding Native sites "has historical value for the nation as a whole," the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said on September 1. "Native American sacred sites of historical value are entitled to the same protection as the many Judeo-Christian religious sites," Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote.

Woodruff Butte is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Although it hasn't been listed, Arizona's policy requires anyone desiring a commercial source number to submit an environmental assessment that considers adverse effects on a potential NRHP site.

The Roots generally refer to our city as "Illadelph"...Jesus fucking Christ, Lookout...you can't even get that right! :)

when i saw them (granted that has been a few years now) I SWEAR scratch kept calling your fine city philthadelphia while bantering with Common.

It's possible...and this city CAN be pretty fucking dirty.

i've never been there. but thanks for assuming i am so fucking stupid as to not know "illadelph". now i really know what you think of my intellect.



freaking stl reject, gets all high and mighty just because he moved east...

You're from Northern Illinois, right? Need I say more?

Doesn't the 9th have a track record of being overturned?
Have the Indians attempted to buy this "Sacred site"? Seems to me, if it's so important to them, they should. Come to think of it, isn't all land (and water, sky, wind, animals, et al) sacred to them?
Curiouser & curiouser. :eyebrow:

yep, far enough north that we actually know how to pronounce missouri and wash the right way. any other questions, mister stlunatic?

While some folks will mispronounce "sink" and "wash," rest assured that most St. Louisans refer to their state as (Mi-ZOOR-ee).

Bruce, if the site is sacred to the Native Americans--and they've been around a lot longer than white folk--why should they buy the land?

because they weren't strong enough to hold on to it. :eek: or more pointedly, if it wasn't important enough for them to spend their money on it, it isn't important enough to tell a taxpaying citizen who owns the deed what he can do with it.

I prefer to get my information direct from the source, rather than have it spoon fed to me via some intermediary with either a left or right wing agenda. Try here:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+Circuit&hl=en

The land owner is P.O'd because he can't get any state of Arizona contracts because the site has been declared HISTORIC, not religous. The owner is still free to sell his conglomerate to privately owned concerns. I find it amusing that all these right wing, Libertarian outfits have jumped on the bandwagon for this guy's right to swill at the government trough.

Perhaps the Native American groups didn't attempt to outbid McKinnon because the sale and his plan for the subsequent use of the land were not made public knowledge?

Let's hear it for the rights of the American businessman to belly up to the tax payer pork barrel! Damn that 9th circuit court of appeals, anyhow! I'm glad to hear you're willing to share your tax payer dollar with SOMEONE, Lookout. Is he a client of your firm? :eyebrow: