731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gorsuch is a joy to read because he mixes in history with some interesting side comments.
Originalism is degenerate legal philosophy. Textualism is all that is valid. We will look back at some of those ridiculous uncited rulings that speak about “how the writers felt given the time” as foolishness.
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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…
Also, TFA notes:
> In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole.
So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma could be affected.
And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gorsuch is definitely my favorite Justice. His opinions are always fun to read. You know when the words "Trail of Tears" appear in the first sentence of a decision that things aren't going to turn out well for the government...
Haha, yeah I love how he upheld that states can use lethal injection even if they can't get the right ingredients, what a baller.
Whether justices should be interesting is itself an interesting question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way to stop our neverending war on drugs is a Constitutional amendment that guarantees every American the right to consume anything they want for any reason. In the next several decades there will be un unprecedented number of elderly Americans living below the poverty line with no pension and medical issues they can't afford to fix - euthanasia will become something of a nuclear option that they'll want ava…
Within reason right? I'm hoping that 'the right to consume anything they want for any reason' wouldn't include those things that cause sudden violent behavior and inability to feel fear and pain. I forget which particular drug does this, but a search brought me to meth and I found this article which says people feel 'invincible' and 'paranoid' and can't be stopped with non-lethal means. https://www.cpr.org/2020/02/05…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, enrolled members of some tribes could sell land to non-members. I think most tribes prevent that now. Land sold to non-members became Fee property that can be owned by non-members or sold to non-members. Depending on the reservation, you will find plenty of non-members that own property within the reservation.
Does this depend on the reservation? I've heard of reservations where you basically couldn't build a permanent structure or get a building loan due to how the tribal land rules work. It's kind of fascinating having these micro-nations that aren't quite nations within our borders, I should read more in to this subject.
Real property within reservation borders is either deeded land or trust land. Deeded land can be sold without restriction. Trust land cannot be sold without approval of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or the tribe.
Natural resources in reservations are usually managed by the tribe. Including hunting and fishing. Some let non-Indians or non-members hunt/fish some don't.
Except for a few exceptions, living on Indian reservations is no different than living anywhere else. Tribe made laws/rules do not apply to non-members -- unless the State or Feds says so. These are usually hunting rules. For example, the Colville Reservation in the State of Washington restricts non-members from hunting large game (deer, black bear, etc.) even if the game is on deeded landed. They can do this because there is a state law that says the same thing.
Also, generally tribes or tribal owned businesses cannot be sued in state or federal courts unless they agree to be sued (same/similar as States and the Federal government). Thus, persons have few rights when it comes to contract disputes, personal or workplace injuries, labor issues, and so on, that involve tribes or tribal owned businesses. Something to think about if one is considering employment or otherwise doing business with a tribe or tribal owned business.
"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies."
Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it. This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications. The Court has only decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Trib…
> This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.
Korematsu v. United States? Brown v. Board of Education? Loving v. Virginia? Obergefell v. Hodges? Roe v. Wade? Dozens of others?
I have to assume you mean this batch of rulings, otherwise I can’t comprehend this idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gorsuch is a joy to read because he mixes in history with some interesting side comments.
Originalism is degenerate legal philosophy. Textualism is all that is valid. We will look back at some of those ridiculous uncited rulings that speak about “how the writers felt given the time” as foolishness.
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…
Such powerful writing by those we've vested great authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens after 99 years? Are they expected/obligated to renew for a reasonable fee? What's preventing them from refusing to renew the leases after 99 years, and keeping the property (and whatever improvements on top) for themselves? It might not be an issue for the first or second generation of owners, but you'd expect the uncertainly to hurt the resale value of the property as the 99 years approaches.
Reminds me of a certain piece of land that Britain has a 99 year lease on. Hard for them to end well without a contractual option to extend under reasonable conditions.
If you're referring to the New Territories portion of Hong Kong, that lease was from 1898 to 1997. That lease expired almost 25 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Yes, the point is there is a specific law that says this, and it's really not that unreasonable, since precise property boundaries are always ultimately conventional.
Property boundaries affect home value, though. The parent who brought this up bought a house with the understanding that he would have X square feet of land, but it turns out, due to this weird situation, he only has some Y (< X) square feet. Presumably he might have wanted to pay less for that.