Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm out of the loop here, what are you referring to?
I'm guessing that they're referring to Mitch McConnell
What is he doing? Mostly looking for a few good keywords to google the issue.
U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
641–650 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#642Earlier 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…
> Still, it seems weird that Congress wouldn't get a say in determining what their own bills mean when there's a dispute. That's an interesting point that has me thinking. My feeling on this is that this is actually as designed. Congress' job is to pass laws after writing them in whatever way they deem prudent. But Congress doesn't really have an interest in the enforcement of those laws, up until the point their con…
It actually depends on the judge whether the lawmaker has a say in it. Traditionally, most judges looked to the legislature for this kind of thing, but that type of judge has been in rapid decline over the last few decades.
Let's take an example. Imagine a municipality wanted to pass an anti-electric scooter law. So they pass a law that bans "electric scooters, electric bicycles, and other such electric motor powered conveyances not generally used by handicapped people" from city sidewalks.
Then one day someone gets arrested for driving a mobility scooter on the sidewalk (like, the three-wheeled things in Wal-Mart, not a Bird). Is this covered by the law? On one hand, it explicitly bans "scooters" and this is a scooter. On the other hand, it says it doesn't target conveyances generally used by the handicapped.
So the court takes it up. Traditionally, a judge might look a the transcripts of the city council as evidence, and find that the line about handicapped vehicles was inserted by a city councilman who said he specifically wanted to allow mobility scooters. When he said this to the rest of the council, they unanimously agreed to add the exemption. So with this very clear evidence of legislative intent, the judge rules that mobility scooters are fine.
Another judge is a textualist. This is an increasingly popular way to look at laws in judicial circles right now. A textualist doesn't care about what the city council meant only what the law says. The text of the law is the text of the law, period.
Which sounds convincing, but the problem with that is two people can look at a law that's a bit vague or seems to conflict in two places, and come up with different readings. One textualist might say, sorry, mobility scooters are banned. Hell, the law is called the "Get Scooters Off Our Sidewalks Act." It's a dumb law, the judge says, but that's what it says.
Another textualist looks at the same law and says, of course it doesn't mean mobility scooters. Any idiot can see that!
The great thing about textualism to a judge is it basically boils down to "the law is what I think it is." And they can ignore the legislature's opinion. It gives judges much more power. Which is why it's popular with the kind of judges that like to overturn precedent like Scalia was.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, s…
There are statutes of limitations on crimes.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 n…
But what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress? You need to consider this as something less brazen could be used to undermine congress' authority. The judicial branch de facto has the most power of any branch in the US. The positions are not elected.
> what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress?
Arguably the court has been doing that in many cases for a long time. But I don't think the court was doing that in this particular case.
The only recourse is to change, over time, who sits on the court.
> The judicial branch de facto has the most power of any branch in the US.
Yes, agreed.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#645Earlier 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.
A "cabal" is by definition a secret political clique or faction which is unknown to the outside world.
It's therefore a big reach to call the Supreme Court a "cabal".
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#646I 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 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 unclear, but it sounds like you’re saying that Texas law expressly allows this. Isn’t this the opposite of what happened in Oklahoma, i.e. there never was a law that reduced the government’s treaty obligations, so the law as written still stands?
In other words, in both cases the laws, as written, were followed.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
> Adverse possession is a specific thing
I know what adverse possession is. But there are specific conditions attached to it, which will depend on the particular statute in effect in the particular jurisdiction. For example, if the poster I responded to were to tell in court the exact story he told here--"I didn't realize the fence was on my property until I had a survey done, now I realize it and I'm bringing a challenge"--would the statute in effect in his jurisdiction bar him from seeking any relief?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#648Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
A "cabal" is by definition a secret political clique or faction which is unknown to the outside world. It's therefore a big reach to call the Supreme Court a "cabal".
Public knowledge of doesn't define a cabal, only the secrecy of its decisions and who it benefits. The Supreme Court hears arguments with no recordings allowed, then makes its decisions in secret. What do they have to hide? And the only thing we ever get from the Court is the hundreds of pages in reasoning as to why they made the decision.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#649Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 n…
But what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress? You need to consider this as something less brazen could be used to undermine congress' authority. The judicial branch de facto has the most power of any branch in the US. The positions are not elected.
If there was something like that, congress can impeach judges.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#650Earlier 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.
It certainly makes sense for government/crown land to be given back to indigenous nations that hold title.
You could do the same thing I suggested albeit free for the Nation and the private landowner seller could be compensated by the government (which stole the land and resold it in the first place).