Posted on 05/21/2019 7:20:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It seems that Gorsuch probably ruled in a manner consistent with Natural Law, which holds that rights are more substantive than those enumerated. If so, this is a breakthrough.
It’s clear why an older generation of conservatives may be uncomfortable with Gorsuch; it was the notion that the right to privacy was greater than that specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights that was used to justify abortion rights in 1973. But plainly, this was merely a pretext and liberals would’ve simply come up with a different pretext if this one wouldn’t have been available to them, since they have recognized no broader sense of rights in any area other than sexuality.
Matters of sexuality are very intimate, but “private” in the legal sense does not equate to “intimate.” “Private” means that it concerns no others’ interests. Abortion, prostitution and pornography are all matters of commerce, and are inherently NOT “private.” The taking of another life is certainly not private in the sense that it concerns the interest of the person killed.
Presently, our privacies are being utterly stripped on the grounds that it is not the state stripping them, or that people are willingly allowing them to be stripped. This is must be opposed. The state cannot allow people’s privacy to be utterly destroyed by other entities, especially, as in the case of Facebook and Google, the entities may be appeasing foreign governments, such as totalitarian China, or Dhimmi Europe.
We had a long thread on this yesterday. I don’t think the change in Wyoming from territory to state was really the core of the Federal government’s argument in this case. Their bigger argument was that the Fort Laramie Treaty covered three separate territories, and there’s a legitimate question about whether that treaty would allow members of a tribe whose reservation was entirely within the borders of one territory (Montana) to hunt without any restrictions in another territory (Wyoming) after it became a state.
The decision was correct but not important. This is a nothing burger.
—
I agree.
When it comes right down to it, exactly how damaging is it to allow the Indians to hunt out of season safely and within reason?
This is just another attempt by the lamestream liberal media to tear down Gorsuch with Conservatives. From what I have read his decision is right in line with past rulings on tribal rights and should have surprised no one.
“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”
Oh, and the title of this story/thread is definitely clickbait. This is a very insignificant decision, and I don’t actually view it as a liberal vs. conservative one.
recently, Gorsuch has een the 5th vote with the liberals on important Indian law cases.
His reasoning seems to me to be something along the lines of, “a deal’s a deal”.
All conservatives should agree with that.
I think Gorsuch is in the right here.
What is perplexing to me is why the conservatives are on the other side.
The liberals of course unable to actually reason legally probably just see this as a race case, so of course they are going to side with the Indians.
My guess would be that Gorsuch in fact is the only person on the court right now handling Indian law cases as a true conservative should.
That said, I don’t know anything about the conservatives’ dissent.
Perhaps someone here could illuminate that.
Peach Fo Fi
The dissenting judges in this case understood the treaty in question to be a temporary one, not one that would be binding in perpetuity. Their rationale was that the treaty established conditions for “unoccupied lands” ... and since it was signed at a time when the territories were being settled, there was clearly an understanding that what met the definition of “unoccupied lands” in 1850 would not necessarily remain unoccupied in 1900, 1950, etc.
Oh no Gorsuch sided with a legally executed treaty!
So just applying reasoning from principles of corporate law....the fact that the counterparty sort of changes its entity form doesn’t abrogate a contract.
Wyoming can’t get out of a contract (treaty) by breaking off from a territory and becoming a state. That’s preposterous.
(And shame on the liberals if they see this as a race case).
Also, it’s important that we recall the interpretive principle that a party who drafts the treaty is not going to get the benefit of the doubt. That’s important. And while I don’t know anything about this particular treaty, my guess would be that the US drafted it, and gave it to the Indians who naively thought that they would have hunting rights in the Wyoming territory forever, because that is what was on the paper......
t seems that Gorsuch probably ruled in a manner consistent with Natural Law, which holds that rights are more substantive than those enumerated. If so, this is a breakthrough.”
His time with John Finnis paying off?
That’s what I dont get.
If it’s a treaty we made, and it hasn’t been overturned....then what was the conservative ruling supposed to be?
Liberals are totally against hunting . . . unless it’s animals hunting other animals or “indigenous pipples” hunting animals (and considering that they consider IP’s to be “part of nature,” liberals probably think the former category includes the latter).
Good God. You and me and Gorsuch and four Flaming Liberal Justices agreeing on a ruling.
I'm embarrassed, but it is the way I'd have voted.
We screwed the Indians every way but inside out, let them hunt, including in Central Park in Manhattan and see how the liberal judges rule!
Could just as easily be covered by press on the left as:
“Leftist Judges Side with Conservative Gorsuch Again! - Agree Cruelly Killing Animals Year Round is Covered by Treaty”
Another dumb headline regarding a perfectly defensible decision by the Court. Let’s see how many people take the bait this time.
I'm pretty sure the original treaty was not understood by either side to in any way imply that the treaty could be invalidated if the Federal government would one day get a whim to redesignate obviously unoccupied lands perfectly suited for hunting as "occupied" simply by labeling them a national forest. If the government wildlife managers don't like it then let them try to amend the treaty with the concurrence of the tribe concerned.
1) Who does "game" belong to; The People or the State?
2) Did the 1868 Treaty (hunting) right terminate upon Wyoming's statehood?
3) Are any "National" parks, forests, monuments, preserves, etc. Constitutionally legitimate federal property?
4) Is Bighorn National Park "occupied"?
I believe the Supreme Court's decision is correct. I further believe that the decision "papered over" serious Constitutional legal problems hinted at by the above questions. I finally believe that the Supreme Court, by this ruling, "kicked the can down the road" on most of those questions.
When I was a young man we still believed that "game" belonged to The People and not The Lords (the government). We tolerated game laws as being necessary to preserve game population. Poaching was a misdemeanor offense. And game wardens generally tolerated those who poached in order to put food on the table.
This is no longer the case. Game now belongs to the government (The Lords). Hunting rights are steadily being eroded. And poaching laws are generally felony offenses, vigorously enforced.
This ruling is correct but not complete. It hearkens back to the days when government was considered to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The ruling is an echo of that past. The present reality is that The Lords (the government) now owns what used to be The People's "game". And the Supreme Court's ruling does not change that reality.
right on
a treaty is a law. period.
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.