Grassley’s vote against the Violence Against Women Act stands out as being particularly difficult to understand and particularly disturbing. His reasons for this vote are both disturbing and insulting to native Americans.

He objects to non-native Americans being subjected to a tribal trial if they go on to a reservation and, allegedly, commit a crime. I don’t recall him ever object to native Americans being subject to trials in US courts. Native Americans have asked for an apology and they deserve it.

Grassley is a conservative and votes that way. Why should that be such a surprise? Not sure where the Hurricane Sandy bill ended up but originally it was voted down by republicans because of the pork added. They took a lot of heat for doing so, even the POTUS returned from vacation to demagogue the issue, at a $180k per hour on Air Force One. Then leaves town without signing the amended version! The senate did eventually sign the bill, 10 days after the Christmas holiday.
Furthermore, I can’t remember when I’ve read a story that referred to a democrat with horns.

So it’s “difficult to understand” constitutional principles, Rich? The Constitution is very clear on the principle of double jeopardy–that it is unconstitutional to prosecute an individual on a charge that has already previously been adjudicated.

And yes, Rich–it is unconstitutional for Native American juries to try non-Native Americans in court. The Supreme Court in 1978 held that Native American courts do not hold inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Native Americans.

Grassley’s concerns are that under the provisions of VAWA–non-Native Americans would be tried in tribal courts without the necessary legal protections and rights that are afforded to them under the US Constitution.

Tribal courts historically have not been bound by many of the basic protections afforded to non-Native American citizens–protections such as the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

The absence of separation of powers and an independent judiciary in most tribal governments make them an unsuitable vehicle for the protection of civil rights.

I read the headline, then the blurb, then the linked article. I have no idea of what information is being conveyed nor the logic of the question.

Grassely is just voting. VAWA as written is unconstitutional. Thats a Senators job, The better question might be why Sen Harkin is willing to gut the constitutions?

In favor of ethonal…Yeh,and so?

Sandy relief is just an example of Democrats able to pork up even reasonable legislation.

The Profs from academia, while sourced as experts, know nothing more than any coffee clatch scattered across Iowa.

I would much prefer the intrepid reporter hold Harkins feet to the fire about any of his votes. The glaring difference between Harking and Grassely is Grassely will respound in person to his actions, Harkin ignores all requests for personal interviews and the media let him skate. As an example, I give you his latest flub about his papers. He has yet to sit and answer any questions about his inane blather about academic integrity. The media just print his written response without question or editoral demands for explanation……giving Harkin a pass for pitching a borish tantrum, by not being able to order ISU around by the nose.

Like most of us, I’ve watched Chuck Grassley for a number of years. It seems that each year his positions and votes become more and more reactionary. His ‘kill grandma’ statement was the pinnacle of hypocrisy in in a long string of divisive rhetoric emanating from his pandering brain.. It was certainly the statement that made it very clear to me that he was no longer a Senator who could be trusted to keep his focus on the best interests of Iowans.

It is obvious that he now marches to a different drummer and has poisoned the trust he once enjoyed with those who do not cater to the conservative ideal. Its time for him to go.