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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by brianwawok »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #668
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress writes the laws. Courts interpret them. Congress can't simply say "oh actually back then we meant this other thing," as that would be completely nullifying the power of the Courts. Yes, they can make an amendment that changes/clarifies the meaning of an existing law, and that might sound like the same thing, but doing that requires the formality of the process -- in particular, bringing it to a vote.

Aren't retroactive laws a thing?

Like wearing white shirts is illegal, effective 2001? So anyone you can prove wore a white shirt 2001-2020 is going to jail? That would be pretty stupid.

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

#672

Post by millirem »

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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

You can also listen to the oral arguments here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-95...

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

#673

Post by arkis22 »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #668
Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress writes the laws. Courts interpret them. Congress can't simply say "oh actually back then we meant this other thing," as that would be completely nullifying the power of the Courts. Yes, they can make an amendment that changes/clarifies the meaning of an existing law, and that might sound like the same thing, but doing that requires the formality of the process -- in particular, bringing it to a vote.

Aren't retroactive laws a thing?

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

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

#675

Post by beervirus »

shpongled wrote: post #549
fmajid wrote: post #363

Sometimes Supreme Court justices will surprise you. Justice Gorsuch is from the American West, and has proven to be a strong and consistent advocate for Native American rights in the Supreme Court, just as Justice Scalia was for the Fourth Amendment.

This comment just demonstrates your political biases, that's all. I don't know why you would be surprised that Gorsuch or Scalia would be in favor of freedoms for the people.

Sometimes people will surprise you. Why, I once knew a republican who didn’t worship hitler and eat babies.

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

#676

Post by arkis22 »

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 court is actually meant to be more trusted than congress. They don't pass laws, they just interpret them. That's why there's only 9 members and why supreme court appointments are taken so seriously.

There was a contentious period during the great depression where FDR threatened to pack the court. A serious infringement on what is supposed to be an impartial court.

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

#678

Post by Symmetry »

ameister14 wrote: post #522
Symmetry wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? What issues of principle would have the Democratic Republicans or the Federalists not been willing to abandon for the sake of the pork barrel, at least after Andrew Jackson? I will grant that the Republicans and Democrats initially had substantial ideological differences they weren't willing to compromise on but that immediately resulted in a civil war and then we were back to the normal state of affairs.

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

#679

Post by skissane »

koheripbal wrote: post #458
protomyth wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For non-natives not really. For natives, it depends on the agreements. This isn't really a traditional reservation situation, since the tribes really are not going to have the traditional governance over the land. For example, the cops are not going to get replaced by BIA or Tribal police.

Why not? If they're on tribal land, what's to stop the tribe from governing?

Tribal governments only have criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans (an enrolled member of the tribe, or an enrolled member of some other federally recognised tribe). If the perpetrator is not Native American, the tribal government and courts cannot deal with the case, only local/state/federal courts and authorities can. (There is an exception to this rule, created by Congress, that domestic violence crimes committed by a non-native against their Native American spouse or partner can be dealt with through the tribal legal system.)

Civil legal jurisdiction over non-native individuals is somewhat broader, but still subject to various complex legal limits.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43324.pdf

Post reply on HN