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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by yellowapple »

remarkEon wrote: post #718
dluan wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is like commenting code - who is the code meant to be written for? other programmers, or the compiler?

No, this is nothing like commenting code. These comments are not meant for other "programmers" (i.e. Justices). They're meant for the public, which doesn't compile anything with regard to the Supreme Court.

No, they're meant for other Justices, too, as well as for judges and lawyers beyond the Supreme Court. They're annotations describing the rationale for a decision - the "why" of the verdict - in as much detail as possible, which I reckon to be invaluable to anyone else needing to go back and evaluate that decision and determine its implications.

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

#802

Post by jacobolus »

shard wrote: post #745
modmans2nd wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Coming across these terms for the first time, and after reading some material online, it seems these two ideas are mildly compatible? Especially with Justice Scalia being identified as both a originalist and textualist. Would you mind explain the difference?

In both cases, the Justice decides based on personal preferences or ideological agenda, but in one case the rationalization is based on cherrypicking snippets from contemporaneous sources to speculate about what authors or supporters (of a statue, treaty, constitution, ...) originally meant long ago, and in the other case the rationalization is based on nitpicking the vocabulary and grammar of the document.

Both conveniently allow the Justice to pretend that their opinion is completely neutral/technical with no personal choice involved, even in cases where the justification is tendentious to an absurd extreme, and to attack those who disagree as radical unprincipled activists with no respect for the rule of law. They absolve the Justice from taking responsibility for the consequences of the decision.

Both originalism and textualism are easily shed by their adherents when insufficient originalist/textualist justification can be found for the desired decision, and following the obvious original intent and plain textual meaning of the statute would lead to an outcome the Justice dislikes.

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

#803

Post by [deleted] »

knodi123 wrote: post #610
schmichael wrote: post #566

Earlier 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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#804

Post by sam36 »

Klinky wrote: post #792
keith__talent wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country. Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived o…

"We", as in, "the country". It's part of the history and foundation of the country you agreed to become a citizen of. The nation of today is not isolated from it's past. Much benefit was gained from injustices of the past. What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter? What kind of values are those?

>What is the just thing to do? Sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't matter?

That has stuck with me and I've been thinking. But I think I got an idea.

Maybe we should educate our young about the past, where we came from (fled state sponsored religious persecution to a land that was free). We could also teach about the mistakes that were made, you know, like how we purchased conquered and displaced refugees from muslim warlords and then tried to treat these people as some kind of property. Maybe even go over the past processes and laws that were used to free these people and become an even better society. Maybe even go further, like make/erect some statues of some of the past heroes that actually purchased some of these conquered people but then saw the light and worked towards freedom for all using the Bible as proof that God made only one kind of "mankind" and no one set is superior to another. Maybe even erect some statues of some of these conquered people to show that we are not ashamed of seeing them as people and not property.

Basically just kind of educate people so they don't grow up questioning the most basic tenets of their own nation and history?

Oh wait...

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

#805

Post by Fauntleroy »

keith__talent wrote: post #783
jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

Who is this 'we' you reference? Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible for crimes committed on Native Americans before they or their ancestors/families arrived in a recognized (at the time of arrival) Sovereign Country. Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived o…

Legally they are responsible because they are citizens of the country, and it is their government that made the promise. This is extremely simple.

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

#806

Post by onetimemanytime »

room500 wrote: post #629
onetimemanytime wrote: post #445

I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored. Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553 In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and uphe…

If Congress cannot, who can? I think treaties must be able to be reneged. And since Congress is signing the treaties, they should also have the power to renege. Now there might be consequences for those actions (the counterparty might attack you, your allies may no longer trust you, etc) and those consequences are what keeps treaties stable. The issue here is that the other party (Native Americans) has no power to en…

Isn't a treaty signed and agreed upon both sides? Why should one side unilaterally change the agreed one ?

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

#807

Post by eyelidlessness »

mirimir wrote: post #732
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…

Wow. That is just so damn amazing! 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 cou…

I don’t recall the exact percentage, but historians found that something like 1/3 of the US mainland territory was never officially ceded from previous treaties (and something close to that likely ceded due to fraud, but that’s obviously more likely to resonate with moral argument than stand up in a court of law in the current legal system).

My city (Seattle) is undisputedly Duwamish territory. The way that’s been dealt with is to deny the Duwamish nation federal recognition of existing at all, so legally they have no claim as a nonexistent nation.

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

#808

Post by yellowapple »

koheripbal wrote: post #457
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…

The entire city of Tulsa is there - literally millions of non-native Americans live in this area. Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

There's quite a variety of ways that the Five Tribes and the State of Oklahoma / the federal government can resolve this, two of the extremes being "Congress formalizes its reneging on its treaties with the Five Tribes, thus fucking over Native Americans yet again, but in writing this time" and "Tulsa experiences karmic retribution in the form of Trail of Tears 2: Electric Boogaloo".

Hopefully neither happens, and instead we get something that at least tries to work to the interests of both parties, e.g. "non-tribal residents are allowed to stay but are subject to tribal law (and pay "state" taxes to applicable tribal authorities instead of Oklahoma)" or "Oklahoma and/or Congress pays the Five Tribes a fair price for lands already occupied by population centers (e.g. Tulsa) and releases the rest to respective tribal authorities" or somesuch. Or perhaps something even crazier, like "the Five Tribes make another attempt at founding the State of Sequoyah" (with Tulsa being a decent-enough candidate for becoming a state capital).

Realistically, though, knowing this country's tendencies toward addressing hard-to-solve issues, the most likely outcome is "nothing changes and Schrödinger's Indian Reservations continue to simultaneously exist and not exist".

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

#809

Post by austincheney »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #790
dfee wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We both know the reasons as we both studied it in 9th grade Oklahoma History. Though I’m not sure that Brad Henry (D) really did much more for those people then anyone more recently (R). To be fair, I’ve not lived there for over a decade. There is quite a bit of grift in that state. It is certainly not the land they were native to, and that is the important point.

I didn't study 9th grade Oklahoma history, so maybe you could enlightened me. I did a bit of googling and it seems that Oklahoma wasn't suitable for large scale agriculture till the 2oth century when innovative farming techniques were developed. Is this not correct?

That is only correct according to what agricultural products you wish to produce. In a purely English traditional style of growing grain in small plowed earth plots you are likely correct, which is a largely ethnocentric view of agriculture.

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

#810

Post by koheripbal »

ethbro wrote: post #770
mirimir wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. That is just so damn amazing! 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 cou…

> the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York Anyone can claim anything they want. What is relevant here, and why this case was decided the way it was, is that the federal government and the tribe entered into a legally binding, clear contract. Lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for a large piece of what is now Oklahoma, in perpetuity. And Congress never explicitly reneged on that contract. Ergo, it stil…

I imagine Congress is going to pass a law the ensures that Tulsa is not on part of the reservation. ...because that would be ludicrous.

The Supreme Court is essentially forcing Congress to take a stance.

Post reply on HN