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

521–530 of 1001 posts

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

#521

Post by munificent »

lghh wrote: post #270
munificent wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural areas are almost uniformly beautiful and serene. It's the beliefs of the people in them that can be hostile.

Ah yes, unlike cities which house only the most pure of thought.

This is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. My sentence says nothing about the virtue or vice of cities.

I'm responding to "Some people don't like the rural states". Almost no one dislikes rural states for their natural beauty. They dislike them for the people.

Whether that dislike is morally wrong, or whether they should also dislike urban areas is irrelevant to my claim. All I was observing is that the people are why some other people don't like rural areas.

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

#522

Post by ameister14 »

Symmetry wrote: post #344
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…

Our system of government really, really wasn't designed to handle politically polarized parties. We've had partisanship forever but mostly it was about competing for patronage rather than ideology. Then after the Progressive reforms of the turn of the 20th century we had a long period where each party had their liberal and their conservative wings that meant low polarization.

>Our system of government really, really wasn't designed to handle politically polarized parties. We've had partisanship forever but mostly it was about competing for patronage rather than ideology.

The first hundred years of the US tend to disagree with that statement

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

#523

Post by wnoise »

krapp wrote: post #239
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your assertion that this "is exactly why we have 3 branches". The normal idea behind "checks-and-balances" is that if one branch exceeds their authority, the other two branches can serve as a check on abuse of that authority. The argument being made by GP, though, is pretty much the opposite: Congress isn't overstepping their authority, they're abdicating it. It's basically like they want to be 'check…

I feel like that's implied by the "balance" part of "checks and balances." It's also simply the fact that politics abhors a power vacuum. If one branch of government abdicates its power, that slack has to be taken up elsewhere.

I would have hoped it could be taken up by the people.

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

#524

Post by virgil_disgr4ce »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #509
brobdingnagians wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> why can't freedom of religion be used to legalize drugs

This is exactly the sort of thing that the Satanic Temple (not to be confused with the Church of Satan, etc.) investigates and does activism about. Well worth donating to IMO!

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

#525

Post by SamReidHughes »

Imnimo wrote: post #519
veridies wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be problematic if Congress could make those decisions. That would allow them to de facto create ex post facto laws by contriving "interpretations" of past laws. It might incentivize intentionally ambiguous laws that allow them flexibility in the future. At that point, the Supreme Court would be in the very odd position of deciding whether something is a p…

Yeah, I agree. That could definitely get into some really sticky territory. I guess the other side is that a malevolent court could contrive those interpretations, and Congress would be only be able rectify the situation going forward. I don't know what the best solution is, but I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress. Still, it seems weird that Congress wouldn't get a say in determining what the…

Congress isn't the same Congress that passed the bills.

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

#526

Post by simonh »

mikepurvis wrote: post #360
busterarm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.

Tim Alberta's excellent book "American Carnage" covers this period in detail— the closest thing to a short answer on it is that the Freedom Caucus is essentially a second party inside the Republican party, and are hardwired into a scorched earth mode where they vote no to anything that has even a whiff of compromise to it. This time was an extraordinary humiliation for Paul Ryan in particular because it should have b…

The problem there was although they were stated to be priorities, neither Trump nor the Republican caucuses in Congress or the Senate actually thought either things were a good idea. Those weren’t ideologically motivated objectives, they were publicity motivated positions.

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

#527

Post by toyg »

staplor wrote: post #352
toyg wrote: post #134

It's so weird how sentences so significant are often "protecting" the rights of terrible, terrible people: > McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and why. Did they mean to actually get…

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.

I do know about Miranda, I was tempted to mention him but I didn't want to end up implying this sort of sentence is always about bad guys - "often" was already a bit too strong for my taste.

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

#528

Post by rudolph9 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #509
brobdingnagians wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think use of regulated drugs is legal during a religious service https://www.pewforum.org/2006/02/21/supreme-court-rules-that...

And, again I think, reservations are exempt from state laws/taxes and to certain extent able to make/enforce their own laws/taxes but they still need to follow federal laws.

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

#529

Post by kyleee »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #425
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. That is also the reality of 40 million immigrants in the US.

Which immigrants?

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

#530

Post by azernik »

seehafer wrote: post #295
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…

Madison thought it highly unlikely that people who held immense power would not choose to use it. The Framers' model (and fear) was Rome, and much of our Constitutional design is intended to prevent an American Caesar. (One of the reasons Washington was universally revered was because he acted so contrary to what everyone thought was human nature.) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" he tells us in Federal…

Despite their fashionable references to Rome, I think the English Civil War was a stronger influence on their thinking - a king's attempt to establish untrammeled authority leading to a parliamentary backlash that was equally untrammeled.
Post reply on HN