Lisse (she/her)
A
How dare Kavanaugh and his SCOTUS 5, say that The Navajo, who have been here longer than the US; is not entitled to RUNNING WATER!

The 1868 treaty he says, "did not require the U.S. to take affirmative steps to secure water for the tribe."

#IndigenousRights
#water
#NavajoWaterRights
01:26 PM - Jun 22, 2023
Avatar Avatar Avatar
0
25
82
Shira Turrentine
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
My heart ached seeing this verdict. SCOTUS has become so corrupt that it must be expanded.
07:56 PM - Jun 25, 2023
0
2
William Turner
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
This spout was removed because the account associated with it was suspended.
07:53 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
2
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to William Turner.
Agreed.
08:32 PM - Jun 25, 2023
0
0
Paulette Jones
B
In response to Lisse (she/her).
This is just wrong!
03:53 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
2
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to Paulette Jones.
This is but then again, let’s consider everything. They reversed RoevWade. They are completely corrupt . Except for the wonderful 3!!!
08:51 PM - Jun 25, 2023
0
2
John Haakenson
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
I read the Times article a couple of times (no pun) and my head hurts. I think we all agree the Navajo Nation deserves a fair allocation of water rights. 1868 Treaty and what is implied skirts the issue. It probably is an issue Congress should have addressed and not SCOTUS. So why haven't they?
02:47 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
1
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to John Haakenson.
The treaty itself is the issue. So here is the treaty itself.

According to some sources, those that signed the original treaty were illiterate of our language.

2nd, Kavanaugh maneuvered language by saying that since water is not specific in the treaty. They are under no obligation to it.
03:46 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
0
O Aguabonita
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
Pretty sure that headline, and especially the subhed, mis-states the ruling, which wasn't that the Navajo didn't have those treaty rights to water, but rather that the treaty didn't obligate the fed gov't to quantify the amount of water they have the rights to. Still bad, but accurate's better.
01:52 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
2
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to O Aguabonita.
Agreed. And I did understand that. If you do read the article, it does state that. My inaccuracy in explaining this all was in my limit to 300 characters, and anger about the ruling.

Thanks for pointing that out.
02:23 PM - Jun 25, 2023
1
1
Happy4uu&u
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
They have already stolen most of their land and the water comes with the land, so why is it important to them when the well runs dry?

That’s their plan for slow ethnic cleansing, whilst they have retreated to the more exclusive land in the country. These SC Justices are heartless souls.
08:51 AM - Jun 25, 2023
1
5
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to Happy4uu&u.
Exactly! It’s genocide. And it’s criminal behavior for the Highest Court in America.
09:52 AM - Jun 25, 2023
1
4
Jody
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
Shame on the court.
01:35 PM - Jun 22, 2023
1
2
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to Jody.
The vote was 5-4 against. The good SCOTUS justices did vote for this. You can figure out which ones voted against. Only one turned.
01:48 PM - Jun 22, 2023
2
3
Ronald Alexander
A
In response to Lisse (she/her).
Same as it ever was
01:34 PM - Jun 22, 2023
1
2
Lisse (she/her)
A
In response to Ronald Alexander.
Yup.
01:49 PM - Jun 22, 2023
0
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}