Posted on 05/20/2019 9:35:20 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch broke with conservatives and joined four other liberal justices in a 5-4 tribal rights decision Monday.
The Supreme Court upheld a Native American man’s hunting rights under a 150-year-old treaty. Crow tribe member Clayvin Herrera was charged in 2014 for off-season hunting in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming but argued that a treaty signed in 1868 between the tribe and Wyoming allowed him to hunt any time of the year. The state argued the treaty was nullified in 1890 when Wyoming achieved statehood, lower courts agreed, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
.....
Gorsuch, who was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump in 2017, sided with liberal-leaning justices on another case involving Native American rights in March, writing a concurring opinion in the case. Gorsuch, 51, is from Colorado and received support from Native American organizations during his nomination. The groups cited his judicial record and his opinions on tribal sovereignty.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
As stated, Gorsuch has a record on tribal sovereignty
No surprise here
His would appear consistent with his rulings in the past on related issues.
it is difficult to really discern whether a vote for or against honoring a treaty is “liberal” or ‘conservative”
so imho, the article’s characterization at least... is just more mass media fake news.. .. the court voted, ruled.. yes.
but “liberal?” nada, imho
The only way to nullify a treaty is with another treaty and that didn’t happen.
Why was this a “liberal” decision?
Seems to me, if the Great White Father promised 12 months of hunting, but he spoke with forked tongue, then the RIGHT (i.e., conservative) decision is to let the dude hunt.
Didn’t follow this, but not going to get too excited, I may have seen it the same way if in his shoes.
Gorsuch, Roberts & Kavanaugh will rotate to the libs as needed, keeping the decisions 5-4 for the left. It’s a scam.
No doubt the MSM is phrasing it as “a rebuke to President Trump...”.
We should respect treaties. I have no problem with this.
I’m kind of surprised this wasn’t a 9-0 ruling, but then I don’t know a single legal argument that was presented in this case.
A treaty should be honored, or America has no Rule of Law. States cannot negate Federal treaties by fiat.
Dartmouth College v’s Woodward ?
I don’t see a problem with this decision at all.
Another nothing burger.
I would think the tribal treaty would be grandfathered in, and not superseded by Wyoming becoming a state. Unless there was specific negotiations that voided the treaty.
Surprised this has not been an issue before now.
I would think the tribal treaty would be grandfathered in, and not superseded by Wyoming becoming a state. Unless there was specific negotiations that voided the treaty.
Surprised this has not been an issue before now.
The state argued the treaty was nullified in 1890 when Wyoming achieved statehood...
My opinion is this never should have gotten to the Supreme Court.
Presidents exist for Native American hunting rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.