Posted on 05/21/2019 7:20:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Josh Blackman
✔ @JoshMBlackman
6/ J. Sotomayor continues to apply treat-originalism, with a citation to a (fairly) contemporaneous dictionary from 1889. pic.twitter.com/0aZqY6NgHm
7 10:49 AM - May 20, 2019
This seems like a reasonable ruling, its impact is what will be interesting over the next couple years.
his case was decided correctly.
The decision was correct but not important. This is a nothing burger.
The negotiated deal with the tribe is a deal.
Now PJ Media is doing the same thing as the fake news media.
I am not American Indian, but I know many treaties made by the Great White Fathers in Washington were not much better than toilet paper when expansion happened.
This hunting variance is a pretty minor concession for the USA to make.
I think Justice Gorsuch recognized the pre-eminence of treaties in our rule of law. IMHO he ruled well
Yep. It’s a stupid click bait title.
I’ve noticed that some have noted that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts have sided with liberals sometimes.
I think this story, and others, are noting that the bloc of liberals have gotten some from the conservative side to join them sometimes, without regard to the specifics of the case at hand. They are just noting the vote breakdown.
I certainly have no expertise in constitutional law, relating to treaties with Indians when Wyoming was a territory, vs. when Wyoming became a state.
Gorsuch did not side with liberals, he sided with common sense. It’s a valid treaty that does not negatively impact the nation.
More importantly, Sotomayor is willing to overturn precedent if she views it as incompatible with original intent. Let us remember that.
Maybe just a slow news day and PJ Media is creating angst to rile up the great unwashed.
Fine by me...
I agree with Gorsuch in this case.
In fact, I am surprised it was not 9-0 for the Indians.
Becoming a state should not nullify their agreement.
RE: Sotomayor is willing to overturn precedent if she views it as incompatible with original intent. Let us remember that.
Isn’t Roe v. Wade a Precedent as well?
So, by this particular ruling, it can also be overturned.
Why is this a “liberal” decision?
If the Great White Father promised year-round hunting, but spoke with forked tongue, well, right is right and the dude should be allowed to hunt without time restriction.
I agree.
Our side has as many stupid people as their side.
I see an actual advantage for judge to have the appearance of impartiality.
I don’t really know how Roberts has been voting, but on the big issues, like ACA, he’s got it wrong.
What does that say about Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito?
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.