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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by ekam »

krapp wrote: post #394
abqio wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent. Maybe if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car. I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being h…

>And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same. It's almost as if they stole part of your country from you, ignored your laws and customs and forced you to submit to their authority without your consent. That must just be terrible.

Two wrongs don’t make a right

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

#492

Post by dragonwriter »

ISL wrote: post #238
war1025 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Co…

> The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchemen

No, it's not; political opinion in the US is closer to a bimodal than a normal distribution; the center of the current Overton Window is a place where you lose your base while not meaningfully appealing to people inclined to vote for your opponent, plus even if you succeed momentarily when (probably not “because”) you do that (e.g., Bill Clinton), the result is shifting the near pole of the Overton Window toward your opponents’ position which almost invariably results in a similar movement of the far pole maintaining the width of the Window.

A lot of the dynamics of this is tied to the structure of our electoral system; more effectively representative, multiparty systems have different dynamics.

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

#493

Post by redblacktree »

nostrademons wrote: post #468
brandmeyer wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchment. Unfortunately, that just isn't so. The evidence of the last three decades has been that every time the Democrats compromised a little, the Republicans just moved further to the right and re-entrenched themselves.

The opportunity probably isn't for an existing political party to move to the center - it's for a third party to come up the center, capitalize on the two major parties being so obsessed with making the other lose that they can't articulate a clear reason why they should win, and capture the voters who have become cynical about politics altogether.

This will likely require some form of ranked-choice voting.

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

#494

Post by falcrist »

StavrosK wrote: post #484
koheripbal wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an invitation for Congress to pass a law taking the land back officially. ...though probably not until after the election.

It means "if you want to go back on your promise and steal their land, you'll have to do it explicitly".

In the conclusion, Justice Gorsuch writes "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."

Extremely well put!

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

#495

Post by bonzini »

sonofgod wrote: post #96
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.

So let's say fraud has a standard tarriff of ten years. And we agree that committing two frauds is twice as bad, so we add them together. Still makes sense. And someone defrauded a LOT of people. Say sixteen THOUSAND. That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...

In other words, jail is only for punishment and revenge, and doesn't give a s*it about reeducation.

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

#496

Post by sophacles »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #483
sophacles wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a distinctly queer idea of physics. Just because many many assholes in the past have used violence to steal land, does not require any of the following: * current or future people honor the validity of those assholes' decisions and actions * current or future people choosing to make right the bad things their ancestors did in the past, and giving back what was taken. * current or future people changing the s…

Theft is a concept that exists within a legal or normative framework. There is no such thing as theft outside of an established framework. If you want to argue that America unjustly took Native American land, you basically have to start from first principles.

This is kind of the same point I was making. I'm not trying to prove that anything was just or not in some grand scheme of things.

I'm arguing that "what happens after war" is not some fixed law of nature, but a human decision. Human decisions are not laws of nature, they can be changed. Historical precedent can be a useful tool, but it's not the same as "something immutable we must adhere to".

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

#497

Post by wwright »

IncRnd wrote: post #176
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 :)

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

That is certainly the opinion of the United States ;) (I'm referring to the laws being ignored by the US government itself, to be clear)

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

#498

Post by 49531 »

djrogers wrote: post #348
NonEUCitizen wrote: post #233

The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen from them.

Every country in the world that exists today is occupied by a people who can be traced back to a conquering nation. If you think through the implications of your statement, you'd see you're talking about wiping out 10,000 years of history and forcibly moving 7 billion people somewhere else.

Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue. There are still many places in the world where injustices are happening due to this kind of problem, saying that it has always been this way doesn't add anything to the conversation.

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

#499

Post by brobdingnagians »

ISL wrote: post #49

I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf "The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

I do applaud that thinking; I hope it sets a precedent that can be used more widely. I hope they apply it more widely to things they don't necessarily ideologically agree with. Civil society needs more honesty and dedication to keeping your word, even when that is painful. That might lead to people thinking more carefully about where they stand and what they say as well.

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

#500

Post by falcrist »

ncallaway wrote: post #388
staplor wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look into Ernesto Miranda. He did horrible things but the Supreme Court said that he incriminated himself without knowing his rights. Because of this, his conviction was overturned and now cops have to read ‘Miranda’ rights to everyone they arrest.

> and now cops have to read ‘Miranda’ rights to everyone they arrest. This is a common misconception, but the requirement is not quite that broad. The police are not obligated to read you your miranda rights immediately upon request—it's possible that they might not at any point read you your miranda rights. What they cannot do is begin to question or interrogate you if they do not read you those rights. Any question…

I just want to note that the thing being read is a "Miranda warning". The rights enumerated in the warning already existed.

I was corrected about this a long time ago by a police officer who knew his stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

Post reply on HN