Posted on 05/21/2019 7:20:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Everything BUT lands that were reserved for military use were to be turned over to their respective states when they were granted statehood.
So it seems the fedgov wants it both ways.
As usual.
Probably some truth to that. Having grown up in the Southwest , I certainly have a different perspective than many of the New England RINOs I come across these days.
That being said, a judge (or any thinking man) should be able to put that to the side when it comes to the law.
One reading -- which was apparently accepted by the four dissenting justices -- was that "unoccupied" meant there was no sovereign authority over the land other than the U.S. government. In this sense, it would be a legal distinction similar to a large section of wilderness that had no governance one day but then became part of a state park or wildlife preserve the next day.
I find the whole thing largely academic, and can easily see how each side would have a strong case.
No more Westerners or Episcopalians.
Did not,at least partly,this nation begin because they were tired of the King’s hunting and fishing laws? We are quickly adopting the same “laws” here. I am tired of trying to fish and having game wardens pull up armed with guns that I could never afford in boats that I could never afford hoping to fine me for fishing,which I can BARELY afford.Time to get a grip,people...
I want a Supreme Court justice to think for themselves. A true Conservative wants the court to decide on the law and not a political block.
The Fascists who unfortunately have too much control over the Republican Party are not conservative. This ruling is actually Conservative, because it is recognizing tribal rights.
The “liberal” justices may be right on this, and it’s interesting that they decided it on originalist grounds.
Yes, a longstanding one, at least according to its defenders. Since 1973. That's 46 years.
Yet, Justice Blackmun, who wrote Roe, admitted that there was no real basis for it in the Constitution, saying he found it in the "penumbras and emanations" of the constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment. Even Ginsburg, who supports the result of Roe, has said that it was incorrectly decided.
Now, Roe has stood for 46 years, as I noted above. So, according to liberals, it's an unassailable "superprecedent" that cannot be overturned. Yet, Plessy v. Ferguson (the "separate but equal" decision), decided in 1896, had stood for 58 years until it was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. I wonder of they would have any trouble with having overtunred Plessy. Why was it not a "supreprecedent"?
I can’t fault Gorsuch on this one. A treaty is a treaty and unless it is stated in the treaty that it would expire on Wyoming becoming a State, then it is still an extant treaty, precedent be damned. If they got it wrong the first time that does not require them to get it wrong in subsequent cases.
Because Sotomayor wrote the opinion, Gorsuch just joined it.
I agree, correct decision.
but how many casinos have been placed on OUR land thru special deals with the state govts and that land become "sovereign" thus OUR laws do not apply.....neither do they get taxed...in my state of Washington the rat govt even allowed the indians to have off rez gas stations and the state is losing millions upon millions of gas tax revenue......
I was hoping that we would finally have some common sense in the SC......I guess not.....its still about upholding special rights except if your white/Christian...
just wait til the indians can hunt for game in Yellowstone or Yosemite and no tax paying American citizen can go there.....THAT is a definate possibility...
Sherwood forest all over again.....
Gorsuch is absolutely an advocate of natural law. Moreover where people claim that he “sided with the liberals” no one reads the decisions. Gorsuch has been consistently conservative in his jurisprudence but people can only count numbers and look at “outcomes” rather than look at the rationale.
I thought exactly the same thing: 9-0 would have been the ONLY correct decision if we believe that treaty law is pre-eminent in the country
As for Why should he get special hunting rights just because he's a member of an American Tribe? Because there is a valid treaty with the Federal government that says so?
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.