What does the law say about it all?
Gorsuch writes that the Indian Reservation exists, by acts of Congress. The applicable laws by congress, in dealing with Indian tribes, are controlling.
Oklahoma claims, we are controlling cuz the reservation was given back to the state, but points to no actual law. Just common understanding.
Roberts writes the same thing. precedent shows we can do what we want to keep the peace. REGARDLESS of how the law reads.
Surprisingly, even Thomas goes with the precedent thing about “intent”.
I’m with Gorsuch on this. Written law is controlling. Congressional “intent” (remember “hanging chads”) is nothing. Vague law is no law at all. Words have meaning.
Well said.