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

#351

Post by notyourwork » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

ponker wrote: post #319

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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

What Gorsuch's opinion does directly imply is that the "promise" to the Creek can be revoked by Congress at any time, i.e. it's hardly a "promise" at all.

The court is highlighting that congress needs to be consistent. Make a willing refusal to original promise, otherwise keep said promise. The courts job is not to decide on the promise but to identify the congress as responsible for consistency with promises made.

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

#352

Post by staplor » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #134

It's so weird how sentences so significant are often "protecting" the rights of terrible, terrible people: > McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and why. Did they mean to actually get…

You should look into Ernesto Miranda. He did horrible things but the Supreme Court said that he incriminated himself without knowing his rights. Because of this, his conviction was overturned and now cops have to read ‘Miranda’ rights to everyone they arrest.

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

#353

Post by llamataboot » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

But isn't this literally Justice throwing the ball back to Legislature? "We understand why you may want this to be true, but if that's the case, you need to do it specifically"

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

#354

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #259

Robotbeat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder about that. Right now, the fact that the Nations don’t have direct representation in Congress (yes, I understand citizens can vote in the state the reservation resides in) makes them appear more like subjects of an Empire than as coequals in a Republic. I think a lot about how to improve this. I think a lot about how to truly reckon with genocide and yet coexist. If anyone has resources about how to improve…

One solution I thought of in an alternative history universe where the US doesn't genocide Native Americans is a tricameral legislature, where the third house is effectively ethnically-based instead of geographically based. Although given the actual histories of countries that do have strict ethnic quotas for allotting political power, I doubt it would work quite so well in practice.

Yeah... I think explicit ethnic quotas can be really problematic. but ethnic quotas would've been better than how things worked out (i.e. genocide), though.

(I should point out that tribal membership is more complicated than just genetic background, and that it varies from tribe to tribe. Continuity from the existing tribal governments at the time until today need not have been explicitly ethnic.)

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

#355

Post by 3001 » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #310

dqpb wrote: post #266

> Tribe members who live within the boundaries are now set to become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes What about everyone else? Shouldn't they pay taxes to the tribe?

For what services?

Stealing their land?

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

#356

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #220

bilbo0s wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch." In this case, that's exactly what the majority concluded. In layman's terms, this is a decision that says, "We aren't doing a thing. Congress made a promise. If you want to rescind it, go talk to congress, not us."

> Congress made a promise When exactly did that happen?

Congress created the reservation situation in Oklahoma many, many, many years ago. Not the Supreme Court.

If respondents want to undo that promise, they need to take the matter up with congress. That's what the court is saying. You can't short circuit the constitutional order. The court is right to drop this right back in the lap of congress.

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

#357

Post by SubiculumCode » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #284

busterarm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.

Because they knew most things they wanted to do would be vetoed. As such, the bills that went forward had Obama's support from the get go. This is separation of powers at work and is a good thing. Edit: the comment above was edited to change the congress and dates in question

If you look at the our American history, you will find that changes in party power happen much more frequently than it had in the first two centuries of the U.S. For many epochs of a decade or more, one party tended to hold sway in both houses of congress and the presidency, allowing much to get accomplished. Switches in party control of government usually followed rises in corruption/ineffectiveness that can happen to those who remain in power too long. In the last several decades, party control switches back and forth rapidly.

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

#358

Post by pnw_hazor » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #194

Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. I disagree with this reasoning. As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of…

You cannot adversely possess a US government's land. Tribes have similar sovereign rights.

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

#359

Post by xpe » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

preommr wrote: post #85

> Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in the majority. The US supreme court is a special kind of circus. For the life of me, I can't remember any of the names of the justices on the Canadian supreme court. Its extremely uneventful, and even if there have been controversies, they were so minor or rare that I can't remember them. The US on the other hand... The partisanship is so blatant…

The reality is more complicated.

Supreme Court decisions may be explained by (1) partisan views; (2) differences in judicial philosophy; and even (3) pragmatic views (e.g. 'what can the country handle right now?').

As to learning what specifically motivates the justices, this is a lengthy topic. There is a lot to chew on.

Actors outside the Supreme Court regularly try to influence it in many ways. Some want it to be more partisan, for example. Some want to make the court more insulated from elections of the president and senators. Some want to modify the structure of the Court itself.

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

#360

Post by mikepurvis » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #265

ISL wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Co…

Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.

Tim Alberta's excellent book "American Carnage" covers this period in detail— the closest thing to a short answer on it is that the Freedom Caucus is essentially a second party inside the Republican party, and are hardwired into a scorched earth mode where they vote no to anything that has even a whiff of compromise to it.

This time was an extraordinary humiliation for Paul Ryan in particular because it should have been an opportunity to get lots of ideologically-motivated things done really quickly, and yet they failed to achieve even incremental progress on Trump's top legislative priorities, like repealing the ACA and securing funding for the wall.