[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

[Reno89519]

This seems like a reasonable ruling, it’s impact is what will be interesting over the next couple years.

[SeekAndFind]

Josh Blackman
✔
@JoshMBlackman

Replying to @JoshMBlackman 11/
In Kansas v. Nebraska (2015), J. Scalia also faulted the prescriptive Restatement (Third) of Restitution: "And it cannot safely be assumed, with- out further inquiry, that a Restatement provision describes rather than revises current law." http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/02/24/scalia-ali-restatements-of-questionable-value-and-must-be-used-with-caution/ …

[Tea Party Terrorist]

his case was decided correctly.

[Artemis Webb]

The decision was correct but not important. This is a nothing burger.

[ptsal]

The negotiated deal with the tribe is a deal.

[wastedyears]

Now PJ Media is doing the same thing as the fake news media.

[Oscar in Batangas]

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

[BitWielder1]

How is this "siding with liberals"?
The Left sides with Native Americans with words only.
The Right supports hunting rights, which Liberals don't.

[redfreedom]

Gorsuch did not side with liberals, he sided with common sense. It’s a valid treaty that does not negatively impact the nation.

[Dr. Sivana]

More importantly, Sotomayor is willing to overturn precedent if she views it as incompatible with original intent. Let us remember that.

[Vendome]

Fine by me...

[Mr. K]

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.

[Jim Noble]

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.

[dangus]

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.

[bray]

Peach Fo Fi

[jmaroneps37]

Oh no Gorsuch sided with a legally executed treaty!

[Zionist Conspirator]

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).

[Codeflier]

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”

[Stravinsky]

Another dumb headline regarding a perfectly defensible decision by the Court. Let’s see how many people take the bait this time.

[piasa]

Interestingly, Alito agreed with the Tenth Circuit that the tribe's hunting right had expired because "the treaty reserved an off-reservation hunting right on 'unoccupied' lands and the lands of the Big Horn National Forest are 'occupied.'" Since "unoccupied" land "within the meaning of the treaty meant land that was open for commercial or residential use, and since the creation of the national forest precluded those activities, it followed that the land was no longer 'occupied' in the relevant sense."

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.