Posted on 05/21/2019 7:20:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So we made a deal with the tribes that they could hunt. Their kill of animals would be a sliver of a fraction of the wolf kill.
The objection from our side is not how he voted, but with whom he voted. I fail to understand why it was not 9-0. Are our "conservative" justices doing what the libs have done forever, simply voting against the "other" justices regardless of the law?
How about “Liberals at SCOTUS side with Gorsuch”.
Or how about - SCOTUS sides with the position that U.S. treaties as defined by the Constitution are part of the “supreme law of the land”, and meant to be upheld on equal footing as the Constitution itself.
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.”
That’s like saying that the fed gov can simply set aside a law/statute by pure administrative act
Again, to echo other’s points, Gorsuch got this right. There’s no mystery at all there.
I guess there’s no mystery as to why the libs got it “right”....likely for them it’s a race case.
But I don’t understand how the conservatives got this wrong.
This should have been 9-0.
“The negotiated deal with the tribe is a deal.”
It’s a US Treaty, properly ratified.
Was wondering the same thing, shoulda been 9-0 for the gentleman.
I got no responses after Kav was appointed that we are not 5 to 4, we are 4, 4, 1. I’d like to revise and extend my remarks we are at best 4, 3, 2 w/ Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, & Roberts being the 3 wild cards. Anything else up to this point is delusion and fantasy, hoping for Amy Barret to make it 3, 3, 3.
The objection from our side is not how he voted, but with whom he voted. I fail to understand why it was not 9-0. Are our “conservative” justices doing what the libs have done forever, simply voting against the “other” justices regardless of the law?
*****************************************
See post 22. I suspect there was a technical point(s) upon which the dissenting opinion was based.
Agree. I don’t see the issue.
“Gorsuch, an Episcopalian from Colorado, gave some diversity to the Court.”
The Supreme Court has zero Evangelical Christians. 0 out of 9.
About 25% of the population identify (based on Church membership / participation) as evangelicals:
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Evangelical Christians are marginalized in every area of our society.
“Gorsuch, an Episcopalian from Colorado, gave some diversity to the Court.”
The Supreme Court has zero Evangelical Christians. 0 out of 9.
About 25% of the population identify (based on Church membership / participation) as evangelicals:
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
Evangelical Christians are marginalized in every area of our society.
what does it say about them? That they are non-hunting kids that went to elite east cost schools, are out of touch with life in the west, and couldn’t care less about upholding an Indian treaty.
There are much more important rulings to watch for.
Let the poor Indian hunt on this land, for Pete’s sake. A good ruling.
I agree this should have been a 9-0 decision in favor of the rule of law. But it was correctly decided.
The Indians want it all ways in their favor. If you ‘trespass’ in Red Lake where they have control over part of the lake you can lose your boat if you do not pay a big fine.
Meanwhile they use nets to catch walleye and everything else in Millacs lake where the American fisherman are restricted to how many fish they can have and what size they have to be to keep.
Except that the treaty says things like "From this day forward" and "shall ever" and "they shall have the right to hunt on unoccupied lands or the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts." There's not a word in there about the treaty being temporary, all of its clauses expiring upon Wyoming statehood or any other circumstance.
Interestingly, the treaty also provides for "the United States agrees to deliver at the agency house, or the reservations herein provided for, on the first day of September of each year, for thiry years, suit as aforesaid, together with a pair of woolen hose for each."
we have a problem with fish runs here in the NW......never ever do they talk about the gil netting that disrupts the runs....
but sure as shootin they'll close down fishing because of poor fish numbers...
and yes, there is more to it than that but why should anyone even talk about "management" if they are not allowed to manage the fish/wildlife....
I did not follow-up on implications or suggest solutions. Others can do so as you have done.
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.