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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by Nasrudith »

alasdair_ wrote: post #561
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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

>"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law." Based on this logic, I'm sure that the USA will be paying for all that tea they dumped in the harbor any day now...

They are safe on a technicality there as they never try to claim continuity with old laws and new laws. Even if dumping the shipments of foreign merchants is illegal under both sets of laws or indeed copied verbatim it is breaking of the old set of law and not the new law as it wasn't "born" yet.

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

#582

Post by crispyporkbites »

MengerSponge wrote: post #289
Tiktaalik wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea, but a policy what would make sense to me would be to respect existing private property, though layer a "right of first refusal" for the indigenous nation to buy it back if it comes up for sale.

Why should the rights of stolen property be respected? If I buy a TV that "fell off the truck", I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to buy it back from me. I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to buy it back from my grandkids either.

All land is stolen property, there are very few direct inheritance lines going back for more than a few hundred years. There are none that go back thousands.

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

#583

Post by kelnos »

alasdair_ wrote: post #564
Imnimo wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people trust a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, over a larger pool of democratically elected officials.

The root of the problem (and this isn't unique to US-style democracy) is that any body that has to deal with re-election every few years is going to focus more on things that get them re-elected, not necessarily things that are good or sustainable for the state as a whole. That's just human nature, and I don't think there's a way to fix that problem without fundamentally changing how with think of elections and terms in office, and I'm not sure what that would look like.

One thing that makes SCOTUS interesting is that they have no enforcement mechanism. It's mainly only tradition and respect for the institution that causes people to follow Supreme Court rulings. If the executive branch suddenly decided to do whatever it wanted, as long as they had support within their own ranks, including the military, there'd be no one to stop them.

On the flip side, this means that SCOTUS has a huge incentive to do their best to figure out what the actual right thing is, and rule that way. Because if too many people think SCOTUS is a shady group of individuals whose rulings are arbitrary and don't deserve respect, that's it for their power. And that's why even when I believe one of their rulings to be counter to my values, I can usually understand why they came to the decision they made, and at least respect the process.

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

#584

Post by bigtones »

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?

Indian Reservations still have to abide by Federal Law (which the ruling today affirmed) and selling of 'drugs' is illegal at the Federal level. They can use them in a religious service, but they can't sell them.

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

#585

Post by pdonis »

btilly wrote: post #411
ddingus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The natives deserve a fair shake and the land is roomy enough for people to get along and work together. Forcing that is a damn good thing. The USA has a lot to account for, and it is very sick. Rough roads ahead. Maybe they lead to better places. I do not feel good about the last 4 or so decades of travel. As a people, maybe world, we may well be better for going down this road.

For the record I have a brother living on a native reservation. I am well aware of exactly how horrible our past and continuing treatment of the natives have been. And strongly support fixing our ongoing treatment of them. However I also strongly believe that our future prosperity is based more on current actions than past circumstances. And therefore believe that attempts to redress long past ills are actively harmf…

> I don't support trying to redress ills from over a century ago

That isn't what this decision is doing. This decision is pointing out that the current state of the law is not what the State of Oklahoma claims to think it was. (But even that claim is dubious since, as the Court's opinion notes, Oklahoma admitted more than 30 years ago that it was improperly taking jurisdiction over cases that should have been tried in Federal courts.) It's not saying "we should give eastern Oklahoma back to the Creeks". It's saying "eastern Oklahoma, according to current law, is a Creek reservation". And it gives plenty of examples of how this fact has been implicitly recognized for quite a while.

The decision also does not affect anything involving non-Indians on the land in question. The city of Tulsa doesn't have to move. Nobody has to leave their homes. No business arrangements have to change. All it does is explicitly recognize that a certain class of criminal cases need to be tried in Federal courts instead of Oklahoma state courts.

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

#586

Post by CDRdude »

pdonis wrote: post #576
knodi123 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he official…

> it's too late because he officially owns it! On what basis does he "officially own" it? Presumably there is a plat on file with your deed of title to your house and its lot that gives the boundaries of your lot, and another plat on file with your neighbor's deed of title to his house and its lot that shows the boundaries of his lot. Presumably both of those plats say the fence is on your property.

Adverse possession is a specific thing in some jurisdictions where if you visibly and openly occupy a piece of land for long enough without a challenge from the original owner, it becomes your property and the original owner loses it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

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

#587

Post by pdonis »

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…

> Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements?

I don't think so. The statute is the actual text that is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Congress does not have the power to "interpret". It only has the power to pass a new statute, which can only be in effect as of the date of its passage (when the President signs it). Anything Congress says or does that does not follow the process given in the Constitution for passing a law is not a law and does not have the force of law.

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

#588

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

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…

Congress controls the reservation system. It's not real sovereignty. That's one of many reasons why there is such large debate over accepting federal recognition among Kanaka specifically. At that point the federal government controls the land, distributes it, decides who is and is not eligible to use the land. The government literally stole my friend's house just by revising the definition of "hawaiian" and telling her she was not eligible.

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

#589

Post by exclusiv »

alasdair_ wrote: post #564
Imnimo wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people trust a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, over a larger pool of democratically elected officials.

From my perspective, I would simply restate it as such:

"It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people distrust a larger pool of democratically elected officials over a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight"

You're framing it like Congress is elected by the people and are thus more worthy of their trust and the fact that doesn't happen is the damning part. But that's one-sided.

In reality there's a TON of special interests driving who gets in front of the population to even be elected to Congress and then what the agenda is for them after being elected. That erodes the public's trust, not to mention all the Congressional scandals over the years and the cutthroat tactics politicians will do to simply get re-elected.

So I see the same conclusion as you but in reverse.

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

#590

Post by justnotworthit »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #574
asdff wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a different feeling. It wasn't empty in the sense that the desert is, which is very pleasant and beautiful, but scarred with industrialized agriculture, and silos stretching out into the infinite surrounding. The fact that there was absolutely nothing at all as far as the eye can see, no mountain or woods, just field upon industrial field with no farm house or town in sight, felt extremely isolating and uncomfo…

> The lack of minorities out in public was painfully glaring. What does this mean?

Poster was amazed and disturbed by everyone being white.
Post reply on HN