>In April the Supreme Court decided what seemed to be an abstruse case about federal benefits owed to Puerto Ricans. But Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion began with a startling passage. He asserted that the United States has no business deciding anything for Puerto Rico because our ownership of that island — and by extension other US colonies — is unconstitutional.

Great!

They pay taxes, then look what happened during Hurricane Laura.

This liminal space of "fuck you, pay me, but don't expect the same benefits as the 50 states" needs to end, one way or another[1].

(But I'll defer to people who live or own property there, I don't have any ties to the island beyond the general feeling all Americans should be equal. Something something taxation without representation - it's been a long day, I'm tired.)

[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/05/06/608868104/federal-response-to...

> “The Constitution does not apply to foreign countries,” Justice Brown wrote. “If these possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible. . . . A false step at this time might be fatal to the development of what Chief Justice Marshall called the ‘American Empire.’”

Kind of a weird statement to be given by a person charged with adjudicating lands whose inhabitants had no concept of "Anglo-Saxon principles."

In fact, I seriously struggle with the logical contradiction that this opinion creates. How can this man claim the privilege to make such a ruling over a land, when his opinion so clearly implies that the USA, and it's Constitution have no no place ruling over the "foreign countries" that the USA now claims as territory.

Obviously, if I could ask him this today, he would hand-wave the argument with that being different for whatever bunk-ass reason.