Supreme Court--Native Land

[Caliban]

This could be huge!
Half of Oklahoma is now Native American Land (for certain purposes). Bear with me as I am just learning about this.
Read the New York Times article:
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in Oklahoma

Quote: "...potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades."

Question: How will this affect congressional districts???

Will this legal president spread to other states???

 

[thecolorsblend]

All of California was once Native American land.

This could be funny. Tragic, nation-shattering and hopeless too. But funny! So that's something.

 

[Caliban]

All of California was once Native American land.

This could be funny. Tragic, nation-shattering and hopeless too. But funny! So that's something.

I think it requires a previous treaty between the U.S. and Native tribes to proceed to the courts. As a resident of California, I will follow this closely. Besides, I own nine acres that was once inhabited by natives before the Spanish arrived.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think it requires a previous treaty between the U.S. and Native tribes to proceed to the courts.

Oh, it does. Today. But who knows what tomorrow might bring, amirite?

#GiveCaliforniaBackToo

 

[JackRT]

I am astonished that there is not more comment on this. In the NYT article an Indian spokesman commented that this will not change land ownership in any way but that it will have profound changes in the operation of both law enforcement and the court system. This decision sets a precedent and recognizes the fact that the USA has broken almost every treaty ever signed with the Indian Nations. I suspect that the next decision will involve the Dakotas. There were treaties that both Oklahoma and the Dakotas were to be Indian territory "in perpetuity"

BTW, why is there no post #2 in this thread.

 

[Caliban]

I am astonished that there is not more comment on this. In the NYT article an Indian spokesman commented that this will not change land ownership in any way but that it will have profound changes in the operation of both law enforcement and the court system. This decision sets a precedent and recognizes the fact that the USA has broken almost every treaty ever signed with the Indian Nations. I suspect that the next decision will involve the Dakotas. There were treaties the both Oklahoma and the Dakotas were to be Indian territory "in perpetuity".

Yes, this could set fire to America. I am not usually reactionary, but this is a very troubling time for this to occur given the current political retribution and rebellion happening in the streets.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The change is that for major offenses they will have to call in the federal government to handle Indians instead of local and state government. It may end up being cheaper for the cities and state not to have to deal with Indians that would have been sent to prisons like Mcalaster for years they would end up in a federal prison instead. It may also backfire on them in a way as federal courts probably don't have near as much leeway and local courts do and federal prisons may or may not be as "nice" for them.

 

[Hank77]

This could be huge!
Half of Oklahoma is now Native American Land (for certain purposes). Bear with me as I am just learning about this.
Read the New York Times article:
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in Oklahoma

Quote: "...potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades."

Question: How will this affect congressional districts???

Will this legal president spread to other states???

There's a paywall on the NYT so here's another article that doesn't.

Supreme Court Tribal Treaty Decision Praised as Game Changer (3)

 

[JSRG]

I am astonished that there is not more comment on this. In the NYT article an Indian spokesman commented that this will not change land ownership in any way but that it will have profound changes in the operation of both law enforcement and the court system. This decision sets a precedent and recognizes the fact that the USA has broken almost every treaty ever signed with the Indian Nations. I suspect that the next decision will involve the Dakotas. There were treaties that both Oklahoma and the Dakotas were to be Indian territory "in perpetuity"

This decision was not based on whether the US broke any treaty. The "loophole" (so to speak) in this case is that the US Congress may not have technically disestablished the reservations it created in the area of Oklahoma. The majority opinion concluded that the US did not actually disestablish the reservations, and if they never actually did that (even if it was assumed they did), then they are still in place.

So if the argument is simply that the US went back on its word, that has nothing to do with this case. In fact, the opinion explicitly states that the US Congress has the power to do that if they wish ("This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties"). So there is no relation to the Dakotas, unless the Dakotas capable of making the aforementioned argument of not actually being formally disestablished.

 

[Hank77]

This could be huge!
Half of Oklahoma is now Native American Land (for certain purposes). Bear with me as I am just learning about this.
Read the New York Times article:
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in Oklahoma

Quote: "...potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades."

Question: How will this affect congressional districts???

Will this legal president spread to other states???

They settle a second case at the same time as this one.

The justices took up the reservation question in another criminal case last term, Sharp v. Murphy. But with Gorsuch recused, presumably due to his involvement with the case which came from the appeals court he sat on prior to his high court appointment, the even-numbered court couldn’t decide. Along with the opinion Thursday in McGirt’s case, the justices affirmed the appeals court ruling in Murphy that sided with the defendant.
Supreme Court Tribal Treaty Decision Praised as Game Changer (3)

 

[cow451]

All of California was once Native American land.

This could be funny. Tragic, nation-shattering and hopeless too. But funny! So that's something.

The court seems to have set quite a precedent. Given that blue yes broke every treaty.... well.... what’s the Cherokee word for “cow”?

 

[cow451]

BTW, why is there no post #2 in this thread.

Sometimes we just get lucky.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

All of California was once Native American land.

This could be funny. Tragic, nation-shattering and hopeless too. But funny! So that's something.

Good, since I'm half /plus native American. I'm hoping Native American get their land back. It benefits me. It also benefits a lot of Californians.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Oh, it does. Today. But who knows what tomorrow might bring, amirite?

#GiveCaliforniaBackToo

Give all states back to Indians.

 

[Sophrosyne]

There is a post #2 in the thread
Supreme Court--Native Land

 

[durangodawood]

Oh, it does. Today. But who knows what tomorrow might bring, amirite?

#GiveCaliforniaBackToo

No. There's nothing arbitrary about respecting ratified treaties. The US Constitution even categorizes them as the supreme law of the land. So no you're not right.

 

[thecolorsblend]

BTW, why is there no post #2 in this thread.

Tfw someone accidentally admits they put you on their ignore list.

 

[Caliban]

There's a paywall on the NYT so here's another article that doesn't.

Supreme Court Tribal Treaty Decision Praised as Game Changer (3)

Sorry--forgot about that.

 

[Caliban]

Tfw someone accidentally admits they put you on their ignore list.

Post #2 is yours.

 

[Caliban]

They settle a second case at the same time as this one.

The justices took up the reservation question in another criminal case last term, Sharp v. Murphy. But with Gorsuch recused, presumably due to his involvement with the case which came from the appeals court he sat on prior to his high court appointment, the even-numbered court couldn’t decide. Along with the opinion Thursday in McGirt’s case, the justices affirmed the appeals court ruling in Murphy that sided with the defendant.
Supreme Court Tribal Treaty Decision Praised as Game Changer (3)

Thanks for the info; I'll dig into that.