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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by alasdair_ »

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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

>"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law."

Based on this logic, I'm sure that the USA will be paying for all that tea they dumped in the harbor any day now...

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

#562

Post by ballenf »

yepguy wrote: post #558
seehafer wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Madison thought it highly unlikely that people who held immense power would not choose to use it. The Framers' model (and fear) was Rome, and much of our Constitutional design is intended to prevent an American Caesar. (One of the reasons Washington was universally revered was because he acted so contrary to what everyone thought was human nature.) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" he tells us in Federal…

Well, Congress is only able to abdicate their responsibility because we have departed from our "Constitutional design." All 3 branches now write law, not to mention other unelected government agencies, so Congress is now free to avoid doing their job and point the finger at someone else instead.

Not to mention our new 4th branch of government: bureaucracy. They do tremendous work, but I don't think they should have the power to draft regulations that have the force of law.

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

#563

Post by ojilles »

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…

> I don't support trying to redress ills from over a century ago whether we are talking about restoring native reservations, or paying reparations for slavery.

This position assumes the ills from over a century ago have been fully resolved _right now_. Watching the news, that does not seem to be case.

(I try not to put these words in your mouth, you're stating "And strongly support fixing our ongoing treatment of them."!)

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

#564

Post by alasdair_ »

Imnimo wrote: post #519
veridies wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

>I guess I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust Congress

It's quite a damning indictment of US-style democracy that people trust a small cabal of unelected lifetime appointees without any meaningful oversight, over a larger pool of democratically elected officials.

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

#565

Post by charwalker »

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 think they could, but even if it matched the SCoutUS decision it could only apply going forward or it would be unconstitutional via Section 9.3 on barring ex post facto laws. Now if Congress were to pass a law saying not that something 100 years ago meant XYZ but that as of the sign date the reservation no longer exists, that might pass 9.3 but if that bill hits the courts, lower courts would need to reference this case and probably conclude that it isn't a correct application and ax it.

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

#566

Post by schmichael »

knodi123 wrote: post #560
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…

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he official…

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 statement refers to an unlawful act, over time, attempting to override the law. In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. The entire point of this ruling is that congress never passed a similar law to make this sort of action legal.

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

#567

Post by supernova87a »

knodi123 wrote: post #560
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…

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he official…

That one is a puzzler, and I encountered it with a neighborhood issue recently. Why are there some rights that are required to be periodically exercised in order not to be withdrawn? Didn't make sense to me.

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

#568

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#569

Post by rootusrootus »

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…

Seems like all of your points conflate current/ongoing wrongs with past wrongs. At some point things that happened in the past are best left there, read about in history books.

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

#570

Post by supernova87a »

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Gorsuch takes a much more conversational writing tone in his opinions? He uses contractions like "can't", "doesn't", "it's", etc.

I'm am not sure yet whether I like it or will get used to it. But it is noticeably more informal than the other justices.

Post reply on HN