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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by veridies »

Imnimo wrote: post #502

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…

That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be problematic if Congress could make those decisions. That would allow them to de facto create ex post facto laws by contriving "interpretations" of past laws. It might incentivize intentionally ambiguous laws that allow them flexibility in the future. At that point, the Supreme Court would be in the very odd position of deciding whether something is a plausible interpretation of a previous law.

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

#512

Post by krapp »

ekam wrote: post #491
krapp wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same. It's almost as if they stole part of your country from you, ignored your laws and customs and forced you to submit to their authority without your consent. That must just be terrible.

Two wrongs don’t make a right

It isn't two wrongs, it's a wrong and the recognition of a right.

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

#513

Post by falcrist »

JohnL4 wrote: post #503
falcrist wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the intent of the ruling, actually. Part of the conclusion says "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so."

And, so, in keeping with Gorsuch's minimalism. No re-interpretation of existing law, which makes the right happy (or did, until recently, I guess).

Sometimes I wish the SCOTUS would reinterpret things that were obviously wrong... but I'd much rather have the SCOTUS interpret the law as it was intended, and have Congress fix the actual problems with the law.

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

#514

Post by vxNsr »

sophacles wrote: post #477
spaginal wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is how this world works. You may be new out of the womb intellectually speaking, but if a child shows up at my doorstep one day and tells me I'm on his ancestors land from 300 years prior and I must vacate the home I bought and have legal title too, on the land my ancestors fought and bled over 300 years prior, even if they were assholes about it at the time, I have zero obligation to hand it over becaus…

This argument translated to other situations: * we can't just end slavery - this is not how this world works. There have been slaves forever. We can't change slavery because of feelings. * we can't give women the right to vote. This is not how this world works, women are supposed to be property of their men. We can't just let them do it because of feelings. * we can't try to have a geneva conventio. This is not how t…

Lol at your last point. It works very well for the Jews. Not so well for those who oppose Israel. The initial way that Israel acquired the land was by ancestral right, but it’s since defended it by war. Additionally, most of the land that is disputed never had any legal ownership as recognized by any ruling government.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense and not worth addressing.

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

#515

Post by drewmate »

triceratops wrote: post #390
paulmd wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the senate itself existing was a mistake. It only is fair in the context of some kind of relative equality of states, letting low-population states grind policy to a halt is inherently antidemocratic. (by design! the point was to give smaller states a say and that itself is the problem, it is a bad idea to let a minority be able to grind all action to a halt. You say "but what if they do something I don't like" and t…

It was a necessary compromise to get 3/4 of the first thirteen states to ratify the constitution. I'm not saying it's great now, just pointing out why it exists.

It's ironic, isn't it? Our system was designed as a compromise, and has resulted in compromise becoming essentially impossible (or at least unpalatable.)

It's amazing that it worked for as long as it did.

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

#516

Post by anthonygd »

Imnimo wrote: post #502

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…

No. Congress writes laws but they're supposed to be careful because the Supreme Court interprets.

They'll essentially have to create a new bill (or tack this on to something else going through) and go through the full process, i.e. get senate approval and the presidential signature.

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

#517

Post by minerjoe »

btilly wrote: post #411
ddingus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The natives deserve a fair shake and the land is roomy enough for people to get along and work together. Forcing that is a damn good thing. The USA has a lot to account for, and it is very sick. Rough roads ahead. Maybe they lead to better places. I do not feel good about the last 4 or so decades of travel. As a people, maybe world, we may well be better for going down this road.

For the record I have a brother living on a native reservation. I am well aware of exactly how horrible our past and continuing treatment of the natives have been. And strongly support fixing our ongoing treatment of them. However I also strongly believe that our future prosperity is based more on current actions than past circumstances. And therefore believe that attempts to redress long past ills are actively harmf…

As you say, "ongoing treatment". The past is still present.

Just because our (US) myopic society places plaques on any building over 100 years old and calls it "historic" does not mean that we get the right to say that something is "too old" to be rememberd and corrected.

Native American's had histories going back, in many cases, thousands of years and for them much of the destruction was relatively recent and they have not forgiven or forgotten.

Heal the past, prepare for the future.

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

#518

Post by ScottBurson »

jki275 wrote: post #385
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.

Calling it a Republican House and Senate doesn't really do justice to the entire argument. Yes, Congress is ineffective -- I think that's almost become an axiom at this point. But it is often ineffective because of the rules it has adopted itself. The filibuster was removed for federal justices, and guess what? I think it's nearly 200 justices confirmed in the last three years, and while I don't remember the exact nu…

The only way we'll get a viable third party is to change our voting system. Allowing a voter to vote for only one of several candidates locks us into a two-party system, because it requires the voter to vote against all but one candidate.

Approval Voting simply allows the voter to vote for or against each candidate independently. (The instruction is to "vote for all candidates you approve of" -- hence the name.) "One person, one vote" becomes "one person, one candidate, one vote".

Instant-Runoff Voting (aka Ranked-Choice Voting, though there are other ranked-choice systems) is getting more buzz these days than Approval Voting, but AV is superior: much simpler to implement, easier to understand, and much less likely to return an anomalous result.

For more info: https://www.electionscience.org/

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

#519

Post by Imnimo »

veridies wrote: post #511
Imnimo wrote: post #502

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…

That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be problematic if Congress could make those decisions. That would allow them to de facto create ex post facto laws by contriving "interpretations" of past laws. It might incentivize intentionally ambiguous laws that allow them flexibility in the future. At that point, the Supreme Court would be in the very odd position of deciding whether something is a p…

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 their own bills mean when there's a dispute.

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

#520

Post by lostcolony »

Imnimo wrote: post #502

One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and-such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation…

I'm not sure it matters. Whether Congress creates a new law overwriting the old, or passes one that tries to explain the old differently than it was executed on, if anyone doesn't object it's moot, and if anyone does, it will end up in the courts.

Particular to this case, Congress could do either, and either way the courts will have to decide whether it's fair to do. But, also particular to this case, Congress has done neither, so the courts were left with interpreting what Congress last decided.

Post reply on HN