While Bill Napoli shouted down our Lieutenant Governor and insulted the Governor he’d invited to speak, Wingnut Representative Tim Goodwin (R-30/Rapid City) circulated among his fellow extremists a hard copy of his latest blog post, in which he invokes a Trumpian fake majority to declare Kristi Noem’s corporate-fascist anti-protest bills “some of the best legislation passed in recent memory”:
Chief Julian Bear Runner of the Oglala Sioux Tribe bans Governor Noem from Pine Ridge reservation.
What’s this all about? It stems from what most believe was some of the best legislation passed in recent memory. What I’m referring to are Senate bills 189 and 190. Basically, these bills address the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is going to pass through western South Dakota [links added, because Goodwin thinks hyperlinks are truck-stop sausages with sriracha sauce; Rep. Tim Goodwin, “Oglala Sioux Tribe Bans Governor Noem,” Goodwin’s legislative blog, 2019.05.06].
Goodwin suggests that the Oglala Sioux and other American Indians can have no beef with Keystone XL because it doesn’t cross any of their reservations. He also says none of us can have a beef with Noem’s new law against “riot boosting”, because they still allow “peaceful protest and assembly” and simply “put the hammer down” on lawbreakers. (Quietly note the potentially circular reasoning of saying a new law is good because it will punish people who break the law… which they wouldn’t be breaking if the new law didn’t exist.)
Perhaps helpfully, the Rapid City legislator offers his definition of “riot boosting”:
It has language called riot boosting, meaning that if you hired paid protestors, who riot and break our laws, you, the person or organization who hired these individuals, are also liable, not just the individuals who broke the law [Goodwin, 2019.05.06].
Ah! What a relief! A lot of us who want to see the Keystone XL pipeline stopped by any legal means possible were worried that Noem’s new bills actually put us in legal peril just for saying things like, “We want to see the Keystone XL Pipeline stopped by any legal means possible.” We stayed worried when Governor Noem’s high-priced lawyer/lobbyist/string-puller Matt McCaulley refused to dispel concerns about such possible legal ramifications in committee and the Legislature went, “O.K., great!” and rushed to pass those unclear laws for their dear Kristi.
And while I appreciate Rep. Goodwin’s attempted at clarification (and when you see Goodwin and clarification in the same sentence, you know there’s trouble ahead), we should stay worried, because the definition of “riot boosting” in Noem’s new law is most definitely not the narrow definition of “riot boosting” for which Rep. Goodwin thinks he was voting:
In addition to any other liability or criminal penalty under law, a person is liable for riot boosting, jointly and severally with any other person, to the state or a political subdivision in an action for damages if the person:
- Participates in any riot and directs, advises, encourages, or solicits any other person participating in the riot to acts of force or violence;
- Does not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages, or solicits other persons participating in the riot to acts of force or violence; or
- Upon the direction, advice, encouragement, or solicitation of any other person, uses force or violence, or makes any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by three or more persons, acting together and without authority of law [SB 189, signed into law 2019.03.29].
I don’t have to pay any money to incur legal penalty under Noem’s anti-protest law. I just need to “direct, advise, encourage, or solicit” actions that result in Noem’s Gestapo arresting people for alleged violence.
Sorry, Tim, I still have my beef… and as a conservative defender of the Constitution, you ought to, too.