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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by NicolasGorden »

antics wrote: post #470
NicolasGorden wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know if this means that the land on which buildings are built could be taxed by the tribes? I live in the desert in CA and here most buildings built on Indian reservations pay a yearly leasing fee. It would be such a huge power shift for the tribal nations. It's one of those things that could ripple through the system or hit some stone wall I'm unaware of. Really interested to know what will happen.

They do not. I address this in my answer: > They did not decide things like: Do the tribes get the taxes from people living in Tulsa? Do non-natives have to abide by rules of the respective nations? Does the tribal government have the ability to reclaim land through land-for-trust? And so on.

You're 100% right, sorry, I read through your answer too quickly. It was the land for trust thing that really covered my question and I wasn't thinking of fee land in that way. I'm very ignorant about this topic, thanks for setting it straight. :)

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

#502

Post by Imnimo »

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation is dissolved."

Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements? Or once the text leaves Congress, only the courts can say what that text means, and if the courts disagree with Congress, then Congress can only remedy that going forward?

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

#503

Post by JohnL4 »

falcrist wrote: post #490
koheripbal wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire city of Tulsa is there - literally millions of non-native Americans live in this area. Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."

And, so, in keeping with Gorsuch's minimalism. No re-interpretation of existing law, which makes the right happy (or did, until recently, I guess).

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

#504

Post by ianai »

jorblumesea wrote: post #480
maxmamis wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're literally justifying genocide.

I don't think I'm saying any of this is fine, just pointing out that geopolitics isn't about what's morally correct. Anyone can own any piece of land for just about any reason so long as they have the firepower to back it up.

This part of humanity's impulses has me thinking we’re closer to the cosmic equivalent of “orcs” than to anything resembling a highly evolved species. Our impetus is to define things in terms that lead to conflict or must use conflict to resolve problems. We’re evolved mammals with a distinct us/them complex. Whereas if we were highly evolved organisms with a more hive like ancestor we might not war with each other as much or ever. I’m thinking like fungi or something.

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

#505

Post by bryanlarsen »

mamon wrote: post #298
bryanlarsen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister And that's the crucial difference: if a Supreme Court judge in Canada starts misbehaving I guess Prime Minister can dismiss them just as easily. In the US judges are appointed for life, so if the wrong person gets appointed that choice will haunt us for a few decades.

The Prime Minister cannot dismiss judges.

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

#506

Post by wnoise »

rndmize wrote: post #331
calvinmorrison wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Balkanization is the fastest way to find out what works and doesn't and allow for local control and decision making, it also makes nice for frequent wars and nutty leaders.

Nuttier leaders than what we currently have, you mean? As far as I can tell, the US did pretty well with less federal power for several hundred years; I don't really see how rolling back 50 years of federal policy would lead to balkanization.

Several hundred?

Two or even three is not usually not considered to be several.

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

#507

Post by seemslegit »

sophacles wrote: post #482
seemslegit wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all nice and well, but what does it mean for the 1.8 million non-native-american people in that area, can one of them now rob another and not be guilty of a crime ? Or does it mean every robbery/arson/murder there can only be investigated by the FBI and charged in a federal court ?

Well, fortunately from what I gather, this only applies to tribal members on reservation land. So some of those 1.8 million will have it apply, and the rest wont. I mean it's right there in the article and the ruling... but you know, racist FUD is a better source I guess.

What racist FUD ? If the jurisdiction is territorial then how would state LEOs be able to enforce state laws even against non-tribe members on that territory, and if its limited to offences committed by tribe members there are potential victims both native and non-native Americans that are being harmed here - those who thought of themselves and their properties as being under protection of Oklahama state law (and paid taxes for it) and suddenly find it voided in some or all circumstances.

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

#508

Post by 49531 »

spaginal wrote: post #321
NonEUCitizen wrote: post #233

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

You have a distinctly queer idea of what happens after a war. This isn't an American idea to take land after conquest, it's how it's always worked throughout human history, even with the Indians that warred amongst themselves prior to the American government becoming the ultimate victor against them. You may disagree with the foundations of the conflict, and you can argue on those merits if you choose, but the result…

This is a unique idea, that feels to be mostly semantic. Ok, you don't want to call it theft, but does that change the justice of the situation? America conquered a series of less developed nations of people through sometimes dubious means, and has spent the years after that conquering trying to erase or marginalize the conquered peoples. America won, so it's not theft, but whatever you call it it's unjust.

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

#509

Post by dr_dshiv »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #499
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.

Amen. This isn't a nonsequitor, I swear: why can't freedom of religion be used to legalize drugs? And, why can't Indian reservations, especially, sell what they please?

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

#510

Post by thefounder »

Imnimo wrote: post #502

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…

I believe the Congress can simply enact a new law and say there is no such thing as a reservation and the law would he constitutional. That being said it would be similar with China's latest laws on HK if not worse.
Post reply on HN