U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by kelnos » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #567

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…

That one is a puzzler, and I encountered it with a neighborhood issue recently. Why are there some rights that are required to be periodically exercised in order not to be withdrawn? Didn't make sense to me.

Perhaps because they're not "rights"; they're legally-granted privileges.

I agree that this sort of law is bonkers, but understand that no one has a "right" to own land[0]. That's a privilege conferred by legal frameworks, and only works because we all more or less agree to abide by them and live in civil society.

[0] The US Constitution does not grant this right, and in fact the Framers were well aware of the divide between those who did and did not own land at the time, and considered landowners to be more deserving of participation in government.

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

#602

Post by lilott8 » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

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…

To ruminate about this a bit, let's assume our Congress critters never change. So Congress passes law "X" during Congress "Y". It is now 50 years in the future. Who do we ask about the intent of the law? Do we ask the initiators, cosigners, committee, do we take a survey of the entire congress? I'm not trying to prove any point -- I'm genuinely interested in understanding how this could play out!

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

#603

Post by lukifer » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #250

krapp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. That's what many Americans wanted, and voted for. A government that governs least governs best, after all.

I… find it rather difficult to believe that a sufficient number of Americans coordinated and voted strategically over decades in order to intentionally bring to existence the current two-party deadlock situation.

Robin Hanson argues [0] that most of politics is not about outcomes; it's about in-group signaling.

[0] http://elephantinthebrain.com/

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

#604

Post by eutropia » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

Mangalor wrote: post #196

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.

Raping a 4-year-old girl is pretty dehumanizing for the victim. I think of an absurdly long sentence as a way of conveying how abhorrent the justice system finds that behavior.

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

#605

Post by remarkEon » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #412

zetazzed wrote: post #301

From the actual opinion: "Oklahoma replies that its situation is different because the affected population here is large and many of its residents will be surprised to find out they have been living in Indian country this whole time. But we imagine some members of the 1832 Creek Tribe would be just as surprised to find them there." Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pd…

Gorsuch is a joy to read because he mixes in history with some interesting side comments.

I spend a lot of time in the summers reading SCOTUS opinions, and I have to flatly disagree with this. Gorsuch peppers in these comments and they distinctly detract from the legal reasoning in the Opinion. It’s cute, but superfluous and further turns justices into “rockstars” to be cheered, which is bad.

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

#606

Post by neilk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

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…

Madison is still correct, in a way.

The US Congress has incredibly low approval ratings, as a whole. But each individual congressperson enjoys surprisingly high approval from their constituents. I guess Madison just didn't see that those two things could happen at the same time.

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

#607

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #599

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…

That's odd. My neighbor built his house on the side of his property and inadvertently built it 5 feet over onto the neighbor's property. The way they worked it out was that my neighbor had to buy that portion of his neighbor's property. The alternative was to move (ie, destroy) the building.

this particular law varies wildly by jurisdiction

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

#608

Post by krapp » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

wnoise wrote: post #523

krapp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people have ceded their authority in this regard as well, through their own apathy and cynicism. Democracy requires an educated and engaged voting populace that actually believes effective government can exist and politicians should be qualified and held up to a standard.

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

#609

Post by bitbckt » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

schmichael wrote: post #566

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…

What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited…

IANAL, and other disclaimers.

Prescriptive easement is not intended to apply to physical encroachment. It's intended to apply to right of way and ingress/egress issues. Otherwise, it would be an end-run around having to pay for the property.

I don't think that principle would apply in GP's case.

Adverse possession, however, may apply.

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

#610

Post by knodi123 » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

schmichael wrote: post #566

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…

What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited…

> If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it.

My jurisdiction does, of course, which is why I mentioned it.

> None of this has anything, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited

I disagree, strongly.

I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law".

Everyone acknowledges that the fence line was once illegal, in the same colloquial sense.

Yeah, you're right, the ruling in the linked article is different, and governs the creation or removal of actual laws. However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.