Category: Uncategorized

After an earlier bout of political correctness, the Board of Geographic Names is making the final decision on renaming Harney Peak today according to KELOLAND:

The South Dakota Board on Geographic Names is making its final recommendation on a proposed name change for Harney Peak in the Black Hills National Forest.
The board is expected to make its final recommendation on Monday at a meeting in Pierre at 1:30 p.m.
The board made a preliminary recommendation in May to change the name to name “Hinhan Kaga.” It’s believed that the phrase translates to “Making of Owls” in English.

Read it all here.

Anyone taking bets after the outrage over their preliminary recommendation?

I might find the subject matter slightly humorous, but somehow I think Marty is to the point of wishing people would leave him out of it.

Apparently the nut jobs from Georgia or Florida or wherever they are from are now demanding that Marty Jackley prosecute people for felonies that may not actually exist.

It might be creepy but I’m not exactly sure that it’s a felony.

July 1 can’t get here soon enough.

@SDGovDaugaard spokesman: Same-sex couples married in SD will get same state employee benefits as any other married couple.

— John Hult (@ArgusJHult) June 26, 2015

Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage
Rapid City, SD, 06/26/2015
South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Friday, June 26, 2015

FHA Executive Director Dale Bartscher announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  The case involved four combined cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.  The key questions they ruled on are whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether the constitution requires states to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was performed legally in another state.

Today five justices of the Supreme Court ruled that all states must redefine marriage directly.

The FHA sees this ruling negatively affecting three major issues.

First, Marriage and Parenting.  Every child deserves the best opportunity we can give them to be raised by their married mom and dad. Today’s ruling puts the government’s stamp of approval on intentionally depriving kids of either their mom or their dad.  Redefining marriage redefines parenthood.  This new definition of marriage further weakens the institution of marriage by making it about the desires of adults rather than considering the good of children.

Second, Religious Freedom.  Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes same-sex marriage, I think we can all agree government shouldn’t force Americans to violate their beliefs about marriage.  Today’s ruling only increases the likelihood that our government will force Christians and other people of faith to celebrate or participate in same-sex marriages that violate their beliefs.  Now that same-sex marriage has been forced on our country, will there be tolerance for those whose faith teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman?

And third, Judicial Overreach.  The freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty. The Court took that freedom from the people.  The Court overrode the will of over 50 million Americans in 31 states who successfully voted to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

Today as South Dakotans move forward we believe that much as the Roe v. Wade decision awakened pro-life Americans, we expect this ruling will re-energize efforts to protect and uphold God’s design for marriage in our culture and our laws.

At this writing, it is unclear as to the far-reaching ramifications of this ruling, and its impact on people of faith.  We are in the evaluation phase and more information is forthcoming.

###

“Evil In Black Robes”
– Gordon Howie

Gov. Daugaard’s Statement On Same-Sex Marriage Decision

PIERRE, S.D. – This morning, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

“I would have preferred for this change to come through the democratic process, rather than the courts,” said Gov. Daugaard. “We are a nation of laws, and the state will follow the law. I will be working with the Attorney General to ascertain what this ruling means for state and local governments.”

-30-

Jurisdiction Over Marijuana in South Dakota and Our Reservations

PIERRE – The possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana is a violation of both federal and state law. As South Dakota’s Attorney General, I respect each Tribes authority to pass laws that govern Indian persons within Indian Country. 

It is equally important to recognize that South Dakota law prohibits the internal and physical possession, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana by: 

(1) all non-Indian persons anywhere in South Dakota including within Indian country; 

(2) all persons, including tribal members, outside of Indian Country. 

These principles are well established and supported under U.S. Supreme Court and South Dakota Supreme Court decisions. 

Since the United States Supreme Court’s 1978 Oliphant opinion, the law has been clear that the inherent criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribe does not extend to non-Indians. As far back as the 1881 McBratney opinion the U.S. Supreme Court found that state courts have jurisdiction over, among other matters, victimless crimes committed by non-Indians within Indian country. 

Furthermore, the South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1977 Winckler opinion found that state courts have jurisdiction over all persons where an element of the crime is committed outside of Indian country. The South Dakota Supreme Court in its 1991 Vandermay opinion reaffirmed that state court jurisdiction exists for criminal conduct by non-Indians with Indian country. 

“I want to encourage Tribal leaders to continue to work with state authorities to better ensure our respective laws are followed, public safety on our roads remains a consideration, and that both Indian and non-Indian persons are not put in harm’s way by the jurisdiction complexities being created by our federal government,” said Attorney General Jackley.
-30-

AFP South Dakota Responds To Supreme Court Ruling
Court Decision Provides No Relief To The Many Struggling Under Obamacare

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Today, Americans for Prosperity South Dakota released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this morning to uphold the federal Obamacare Exchange in the controversial case, King v. Burwell:

“The Court’s decision today offers no relief to Obamacare’s many victims,” said Americans for Prosperity State Director Ben Lee. “For far too long, Obamacare’s burdensome taxes and mandates have wreaked havoc on American families and businesses. This law was hurting people yesterday, and will continue to do so tomorrow.”

“Obamacare remains wildly unpopular and for good reason: it limits access to care and has sent premiums skyrocketing. Americans for Prosperity South Dakota will continue pressing Congress to provide relief from the law’s expensive mandates, and continue fighting for patient-centered reforms that work.”

A spokesman for the chapter said they planned to direct the public to voice their discontent with the law by signing the petition at www.americansforprosperity.org/burwell.

The national organization also announced plans to launch a significant digital buy with an ad advocating for people’s health over politics, which will reach most major media markets in the United States.

Watch the video here:

Former State Rep. Kathy Tyler just can’t win. Today, the State Supreme Court handed down a decision in the matter of “Grant County Concerned Citizens v Grant County Board of Adjustment,” in which

Tyler, who seemed to act as front person for the group, attempted to throw everything including the kitchen sink (Including digging a well to try to frustrate the application)in an attempt to deny the board of adjustment permitting for a CAFO, or “concentrated animal feeding operation” which was working to set up shop in Grant County just down the road from the former Democratic State Representative.

And in each and every claim in the lawsuit, the State Supreme Court shut Tyler’s group down. Go ahead and read it for yourself:

Grant County – Teton Appeal II 6-25-15

What do you think? Is the problem that people who move out to the country expect it to not smell like the country when a neighbor decides to raise pigs? Our food does need to come from somewhere.

Thune Statement on King v. Burwell Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement regarding today’s Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell:

“Obamacare continues to be a disaster for many American families and businesses. Under this law, Americans will continue to pay higher premiums, face an avalanche of regulations, and cope with the loss of their preferred doctors. Obamacare’s ‘top-down’ approach to health care has forced Americans off plans that they liked, hurt job creation, and reduced choices of doctors and hospitals. The Republican-led Senate remains committed to repealing this fundamentally broken law and replacing it with patient-centered reforms that work for the American people.”

 ###