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

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

Post by hinkley »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

> our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is

We need more Civics classes for students.

Branches of the Federal Government being put into the decision because of a massive failure of another is exactly why we have 3 branches. It's rock-paper-scissors. Checks and balances. Which is why, for instance, people squawk so much when the executive branch imagines itself new powers it was not granted.

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

#192

Post by thex10 »

umvi wrote: post #114
thex10 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not everyone assimilate? Yes, exactly, why not the USians assimilate into the many Native nations they occupy? They've had literal centuries...

Native Americans had wars and conquered each other for millennia before white man came. It wasn't some unified utopia in the Americas like Pocahontas leads you to believe. It was a huge cycle of tribalism, conquering each other, and bloodshed. So... because they were conquering each other first, a technologically superior entity isn't allowed to conquer them?

Wow, this response is projecting a whole lot onto my comment.

My only reply in turn is, no, I don’t believe an entity should be “allowed” (by whom?) to conquer a nation in violation with their agreement just because they happen to have different technological capabilities

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

#193

Post by masklinn »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #158
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…

A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating. "Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap m…

> This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare.

It didn't rule that the current administration can't undo the program, it ruled that the administration has to properly justify that decision, and not doing so is unlawful.

At no point did it rule on DACA itself, or prevent the administration from providing actual, motivated and legal reasoning for rescinding the program.

Also

> This was his dissent on DACA.

Which corresponds to the majority ruling on this case, yet I can't help but notice Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in the majority, not Thomas.

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

#194

Post by btilly »

Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.

I disagree with this reasoning.

As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of the land to me. This principle is not only recognized in our courts, but the clarity that it provides around ownership is a major foundation of our economic system. The reason is that before ownership was clarified with this principle, our land was covered by a mess of overlapping and contradictory claims to ownership of the land. But with a clear owner, however established, that owner can now use their ownership as collateral.

For a book-length treatment of that thesis I point you at https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-E....

But this decision opens up the legal status of half of Oklahoma for debate, while other tribes around the nation are going to be thinking about which further claims they can now press.

If we continue to open up the course of reversing long-done ills, will we start to ask whether West Virginia should not exist not as an interesting academic question, but as a current legal one? See https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/01/west-virgin... for background on that.

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

#195

Post by hinkley »

war1025 wrote: post #156
calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…

Abdicating some responsibilities and becoming positively petty on the ones they've decided to focus on.

It's like the old joke about Academia: the political infighting is so intense because the stakes are so low.

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

#196

Post by Mangalor »

abeppu wrote: post #57

> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court. Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.

All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.

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

#197

Post by hvs »

war1025 wrote: post #156
calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…

Unfortunately, that precisely the opinion that the Romans came to as well.

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

#198

Post by rtkwe »

nostromo wrote: post #142
calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

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…

> (As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so even if they didn't pass any new laws, the legal code will still change every year.)

Normally this wouldn't be so bad, Congress is bad at making small evidence based changes on a reasonable timeline so instead they setup the rules for making the rules and the goals and instantiate or grant that authority to a division of the executive. Unfortunately it seems the courts have become very enthralled to varying degrees to the unitary executive theory which makes corralling that power more difficult.

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

#199

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

jjaaammmmy wrote: post #50
asdf21 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?

so would it be ok to mockingly use the n word in the same way?

I don't think there's a consensus on that. Regarding words that some persons find deeply offensive:

- Some readers feel that using such words should be avoided simply because it's emotionally hurtful to certain individuals. Or because it reinforces beliefs they find abhorrent. Or for the pragmatic reason that it tends to end constructive discussion.

- Other readers feel that having policies against using such words does more harm than good, and stifles free and honest discussion. And coddles individuals who are too easily offended, when they should in fact use it as an opportunity to mature.

I think HN's audience skews more towards that first group. I'm sure other forums exist that skew the other way.

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

#200

Post by guerrilla »

btilly wrote: post #194

Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. I disagree with this reasoning. As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of…

Squatters rights only apply to abandoned property though. This land wasn't abandoned at any time. People were forced out and it was occupied.
Post reply on HN