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

#901

Post by sjy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:50 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #857

riquito wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 or breathed. Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits? Do you use "we" in your country only to refer to the good parts of your history, or up to the day you set foot on it? Do you think countrie…

> Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits? This idea of generational responsibility, taken to its full extent, might have some unintended consequences. For example, aren't there historical records that indicate that the at least some Native American tribes themselves fought over territory? How should those claims be adjudicated? How does this logic wor…

The argument for reparations is not about punishment for past crimes. It is about remediating inequity that still exists today as a result of those crimes.

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

#902

Post by gadders » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 8:59 AM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #499

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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

I do applaud that thinking; I hope it sets a precedent that can be used more widely. I hope they apply it more widely to things they don't necessarily ideologically agree with. Civil society needs more honesty and dedication to keeping your word, even when that is painful. That might lead to people thinking more carefully about where they stand and what they say as well.

They do seem to apply it selectively. Scalia was like "It maybe a good idea but it's against the consitution. If the people want it, elect congress to make an amendment/pass a new law".

Now it's like "Well, it's not strictly in the constitution, but we like the idea, so if we squint a bit we can probably make a tenous case for it."

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

#903

Post by sjy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:00 AM UTC

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.

Surely the public (ie. non-lawyers) are a vanishingly small proportion of the people who read beyond the syllabus?

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

#904

Post by nsajko » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:06 AM UTC

This just talks about the case with the rape, but there was also one with a murder that SCOTUS decided on the same day, and it was based on the same question of whether the reservation still exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy

Can somebody explain why is it that in "Sharp v. Murphy" only Thomas and Alito dissented, while in "McGirt v. Oklahoma" Roberts and Kavanaugh dissented, too?

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

#905

Post by afthonos » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:15 AM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #904

This just talks about the case with the rape, but there was also one with a murder that SCOTUS decided on the same day, and it was based on the same question of whether the reservation still exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy Can somebody explain why is it that in "Sharp v. Murphy" only Thomas and Alito dissented, while in "McGirt v. Oklahoma" Robert…

My guess is that it's because it was a per curiam decision, meaning the majority felt that it didn't need a lot of elaboration. The reason for that is probably that given McGirt v. Oklahoma, Sharp v. Muphy was an obvious ruling.

In other words, Roberts and Kavanaugh disagreed with McGirt, but once McGirt was precedent, Sharp followed immediately. Thomas is known for thinking precedent doesn't matter and should therefore be (mostly) ignored, so his dissent is not surprising to me, though I didn't read it. Likewise, I didn't read Alito's, so I don't know what his reasoning was.

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

#906

Post by rswail » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:18 AM UTC

mxcrossb wrote: post #707

beenBoutIT wrote: post #556

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…

We’ve really reached quite the low point if mind altering substances and suicide are considered the way to improve things...

My body, my choice. It's not about whether or not the substances are mind altering, or whether or not I am suicidal for a legitimate reason (unbearable pain, lack of quality of existence).

What needs to be done is to de criminalize these things. One of the primary causes of the expansion of police power has been the "War on Drugs".

"War on Nouns" is a stupid way to run a society. Using law enforcement as your first line intervention for mental health, substance use and other such problems is a stupid way to use your resources to provide for the common welfare.

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

#907

Post by rswail » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:19 AM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #763

beenBoutIT wrote: post #556

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…

Elderly Americans already have Medicare. This scenario doesn’t seem likely.

How is universal healthcare for older people somehow relevant to whether or not they are entitled to consume substances or decide that they have reached a point where they no longer wish to live?

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

#908

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #882

beenBoutIT wrote: post #556

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…

> 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. I disagree; whilst decriminalization is the way forward for the harmless / "soft" drugs, the hard drugs (e.g. heroin) are dangerous and destroy people and should not be freely accessible to anyone, anywhere. What some countries do instead is provide h…

> I disagree; whilst decriminalization is the way forward for the harmless / "soft" drugs,

What harmless drugs? No drugs, not even the ones that are currently legal (well, especially not some of them, really) are harmless. Prohibition isn't a bad idea because the prohibited substances are harmless, but because prohibition isn't an efficient mechanism of mitigating the harms (in fact, it aggravates them.)

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

#909

Post by rswail » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #705

vlovich123 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are statutes of limitations on crimes.

Sure, I'm not saying that it's reasonable to prosecute the neighbor for the prior act of building on someone else's land (though I'm not sure that's a crime; at worst I expect it'd be a form of trespassing, but would otherwise be a civil matter). I'm just noting the weirdness that the legal status of the property was changed through an initially illegal act. But I guess on second thought maybe it's not that weird? Li…

I think it's interesting that a debate about the impact of adverse possession upon the original land owner has resulted from a SCOTUS decision about a Treaty between the United States and an Indian nation.

On what basis was the rest of Oklahoma not "adversely possessed"?

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

#910

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:27 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #661

vlovich123 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are statutes of limitations on crimes.

I understand statutes of limitations are about blocking prosecution of past infringement, not granting a legal right to continuous infringement.

If the statute of limitations for conversion has expired, you will no longer be able to recover either the chattel or its value from the converter. The analogy to adverse possession or easement by prescription in real property should be fairly obvious.