Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#171

Post by notatoad »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #127
gerbal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These rights existing because the US government signed treaties with independent foreign nations. Those treaties are valid law until the Congress withdraws from them.

Did the US government ever acknowledge them as independent foreign nations? The War of Independence was partly fought to get away from the British proclamation of 1763 that said you couldn't settle west of the Appalachians without a treaty. Oklahoma was part of the Louisiana purchase, the US considered it their land for that reason. The US signed treaties with the indigeneous population in an attempt to secure peace,…

>The US signed treaties with the indigeneous population

and by doing so, acknowledged that those indigenous populations were soveriegn nations. It doesn't matter why they signed those treaties, the only thing that matters is that they did.

You don't get to cancel a treaty just because the other party used to have leverage over you and doesn't anymore.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#173

Post by mason55 »

antics wrote: post #130

Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…

> The Court has only decided that the federal government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens

Did I misunderstand what the case was about? I thought the case was that the state government has no jurisdiction and only the federal government has jurisdiction.

Or maybe I'm confused because that's what the previous (4-4 deadlock) case was about and this one is actually bigger.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#174

Post by wonderwonder »

antics wrote: post #130

Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…

Ruling found that state government does not have prosecutorial jurisdiction, the federal government does and could still choose to prosecute the individual at the root of this case in federal court.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#175

Post by bryanlarsen »

tyre wrote: post #113
preommr wrote: post #85

> Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in the majority. The US supreme court is a special kind of circus. For the life of me, I can't remember any of the names of the justices on the Canadian supreme court. Its extremely uneventful, and even if there have been controversies, they were so minor or rare that I can't remember them. The US on the other hand... The partisanship is so blatant…

The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not surprising that there are differences. Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing justices is a rather existential question.

What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with our Constitution so it's just as existential.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#176

Post by IncRnd »

wwright wrote: post #35
newacct583 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we are going to truly treat this 1833 treaty as legally valid If? SCOTUS literally just said it's valid. Today. As far as what's going to happen, presumably the state legislature, congress, and the Tribal government(s) are going to come to some kind of deal. I'm no expert. I'm just reacting to the vaguely racist paranoia in the headline that has people freaking out that they'll suddenly be Ruled by Indians.

I said _treat_ it as valid. There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid (such as international ones). It was a genuine question though; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I knew how it would be handled :)

International Laws should not be expected to have juirisdiction inside of the United States.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#177

Post by tony_cannistra »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #160
antics wrote: post #130

Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…

Does the nature of the crime in this case have any implications on the ongoing precedent? It's bizarre that the headline could have read: Rape-related SC Decision Returns Land to Native American Tribe.

Unfortunately there's really no "return" of land. These headlines are siezing on the above technicality mentioned, which simply formalizes Tribal jurisdiction.

The big news is precisely that formal recognition of Tribal (and, notably, treaty-conferred) authority.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#178

Post by bilbo0s »

Angostura wrote: post #151
nostromo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. That isn't an invitation for the executive branch (or judiciary) to overreach. In theory congress could go years without passing a single law, and that would be fine. It would signal that the current laws are sufficient. (As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so e…

> If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. ... and therefore the promise is still in force and should be upheld.

True. In this case, either way, half of Oklahoma belongs to the tribe. Congress has not taken it away in the legally prescribed manner, therefore SCOTUS has no choice but to say that until congress does, the promise has to be upheld.

Congress has to do its job. Or not. Whichever it chooses. But it can't rely on the courts to do its job. The courts are right to let everything sit exactly where it is, and drop the entire matter back in the lap of congress.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#179

Post by IncRnd »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #91
wwright wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said _treat_ it as valid. There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid (such as international ones). It was a genuine question though; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I knew how it would be handled :)

>There are many valid laws we don't treat as valid Including several on the bill of rights.

I agree 100% with your point but would just make one change to the wording. The Bill of Rights isn't made up of laws.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#180

Post by luigibosco »

newacct583 wrote: post #44
binarymax wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect. EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.

It was sarcasm. I'm calling out the racism implicit in the headline. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

If you put the word in quotes, it is clearer that it doesn't belong to you..
Post reply on HN