In concern of a Supreme Court Nominee, Leadership of the Republican Party announced that the current President should not take any action for the next 340 days. This has been the thread running through all the media appearances by potential GOP nominees throughout the weekend, as a Supreme Court Justice was found un-responsive in Texas. No matter who the President submits as a replacement to the highest court in the land, the majority in the legislative branch promises to deny the appointee confirmation. Now I am a novice in all things judicial and most things legislative, but what happens to you or I if we promise to accomplish nothing in the next year or even worse threaten to cause disruption even damage if someone else tries to accomplish anything? I have waited a few days to observe news stories and due a little more research before I resume writing on this subject. The most significant observation I've made to date was in the comments section of a news release about the Justices memorial services at the courthouse. It stood out to me that there are people who put all of the aspirations on this one man to encapsulate the mindset of an entire nation. I believe the Gentleman of noble stature and valid respect deserves much praise in the time of his passing as it is custom, but to view his passing as the loss of hope for an entire country is a little exaggerated in my opinion. so before I go on, let me make the exact alternative argument that in tradition of full rebuttal would be appreciated by the good gentleman I am speaking of. May he rest in Peace. In 2004 a young senator from Chicago gave a hyper partisan speech filled with hopeful rhetoric and a tinge of old activism at the Democratic National Convention. That man went onto become the first African-American President. He went onto serve a second term in re-election and is currently the man responsible for appointing a successor to the bench of the departed civil servant we are discussing in this post. Now let me be clear when I use the word civil servant that it is a great honor and to use the pun "Justified," to put forth one's effort as a merchant of community. I am not at liberty to do a comparison or even creatively separate the two ideas of Law & Governing, as they go hand in hand. You cannot have order within one branch without the other. People are talking about the Constitution of this nation and the fore-fathers intentions or purpose concerning the overall stated document, but let's be real in admitting that there are Twenty-seven Amendments that have been ratified by the requisite number of states and are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still technically open and pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. So to say the Official document is a standard of the Nation is ambiguous in that it is accepted in all scholar of study that it is meant to provide a framework of which should include changing ideas and solutions. In short form, our principles of government are not set in stone as proposed. We accept and hold dear many of it's ideas like Freedom of Speech, the right to bear arms and Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness, but even before I can finish this sentence each idea I omitted can be dissected into two opposite ideological camps. So therefore, what we have is an conundrum of opposing ideas that come together in understanding it is through compromise and working together that is the true founding of this nation. With that all said, let me provide some unique information in that through every post I write I always connect it to my perspective as a Native American which is the true membership of the inhabitants of this continent. As a Native American which is determined by sovereign status to be a country within a country that deserves the honor and respect of a Nation to Nation relationship, I am a product of two worlds. I have grown and been educated to learn my own history of the people of my nation and also of the nation from which we have a treaty. You see in my view I truly believe the the bigger portion of responsibility relies on the U.S. Governments founding documents. It is within these documents that we find the separation of branches of government. Within the Legislative branch of government we find the power to ratify and change certain inalienable rights by detail, but the overall decision is left to the Judicial Branch in terms of legal interpretation. The changes or amendments rather through lobbying or some other activism is omitted to the Executive Branch to be signed into law once passing the prior two governing branches. From my point of view, the United States of America has a unique and special relationship with the nation I belong to in that there are many super-ceding commitments and areas of partnership concerning the future of my people and the existence we experience. You see I live in the homeland of my ancestors and that is unique in that no other citizen of this country can truly claim that they are from this country even though they might have been born here. That's very important to keep in mind when discussing the matters of law and honoring commitments of the most respected documents founding this nation. I see the treaty and the governing documentation asserting the establishment of my nation just as important as the Constitution of the United States of America. So in contrast to the interpretation of law we have an impasse of ideas that go back to the beginning of this nation as a whole where my people existed, survived and still prosper today within a society that doesn't even recognize our right to pursue happiness through a simple portrayal of cartoonish imagery of my people. It's a simple idea that as a Native American I find it offensive to be portrayed in such a manner. To be put on display and marketed for none other than profit is not a good enough argument that this should be allowed to continue. My culture is not for sale nor is my ancestry, but these cases don't get valid representation in a legal argument from the Honorable Justice in which I am discussing. In my nation the man is known to be anti-indian. The Kansas City Royals got a hearing in the Supreme court without rebuttal before any indigenous nation. Anti-Defamation & Mascots "From time immemorial, the greatness of tribal nations and Native people has been the foundation of America’s story. From tribes’ role as America’s first governments, to modern day actors, athletes, and political leaders, Native people contribute to American greatness every single day. Negative Indian stereotypes – especially those perpetuated by sports mascots – affect the reputation and self-image of every single Native person and foster ongoing discrimination against tribal citizens." -National Congress of American Indians. Going back to the dilemma of picking a successor for the departed Honorable Justice and the leaders of this great nation, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction as the latter majority was conservative. In my mind if conservatism means disassociating people from the god given right of self respect & dignity that each one of us so solemnly deserves then I urge the judicial process to be changed to benefit those of progressive ideas. What do we want as a nation? To go backwards or to go forward?