SCOTUS Cancels Part of Oklahoma, Decides It's Still an Indian Reservation

[TBoneTX 43,020]

How...?!

Quote

SCOTUS Cancels Part of Oklahoma, Decides It's Still an Indian Reservation

Bronson Stocking  |  Posted: Jul 09, 2020 5:50 PM

 

A large part of Oklahoma was just canceled.  The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that millions of acres in eastern Oklahoma -- including Tulsa, the state's second-largest city -- are still part of an American Indian reservation.  [...]

 

Continues here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/07/09/scotus-cancels-part-of-oklahoma-decides-its-still-an-indian-reservation-n2572221  

 

[Just Paul 4,591]

We have that same issue here in Arizona.  Sounds like a map problem.  An Indian murders someone on a reservation and it is a federal crime.  A non indian does the same to a non indian and the county sheriff takes it and it is a state crime.  I guess our boundaries are better known.

[yuna628 9,527]

12 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

How...?!

Simple. For one Gorsuch has always taken a particular interest in Native cases and law. This one is kinda clear. So the US government way back when promised the tribe these lands. And it wasn't just one of those promises we did with a wink and went back on later, but a pretty ironclad treaty which didn't just promise it for a little while, but for perpetuity. The only way the treaty could be changed is with approval of Congress, and as Gorsuch notes, no Congress since the time of it's writing has seen fit to do so. Within the boundaries of these lands tribal and federal law can prevail under particular rules of sovereignty. Taxes may have been illegally collected in the past. This doesn't make Oklahoma somehow 'cancelled'. Oklahoma is Oklahoma, and has always existed. Roberts wrote a good dissenting argument, but if Congress wants to change the treaty, it will actually have to do it. Won't be a particular comfortable exit route though, which is likely why no Congress has really tried to do so. Yes this opens up a giant can of worms, but can't say they weren't warned. Getting past the bad takes and breathless hyperbole, it's the state as an institution of laws that loses power to enforce it's jurisdiction against Native members within the set boundaries of the treaty. But there is little impact to non-Natives, of which is the majority population. The question really was did McGirt, who is a Native American, commit his crime within these boundaries, and as such who has authority to try him? The state? No. The feds. Yes. As Gorsuch notes, it's not as if this tribe is completely without resources. It has it's own police force, jails, laws, court, and hospital system. McGirt was convicted in 1997. He will have to be re-tried again, and the feds can certainly do that, because of the serious nature of the crime. The state of Oklahoma has argued that this could have potential consequences for tax collection (likely) and many other disputed issues. It's Gorsuch's position that it doesn't matter. The law is the law, the treaty is the treaty. If you want to fix it, that's up to Congress to grow a pair.

 

[Dashinka 23,202]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Simple. For one Gorsuch has always taken a particular interest in Native cases and law. This one is kinda clear. So the US government way back when promised the tribe these lands. And it wasn't just one of those promises we did with a wink and went back on later, but a pretty ironclad treaty which didn't just promise it for a little while, but for perpetuity. The only way the treaty could be changed is with approval of Congress, and as Gorsuch notes, no Congress since the time of it's writing has seen fit to do so. Within the boundaries of these lands tribal and federal law can prevail under particular rules of sovereignty. Taxes may have been illegally collected in the past. This doesn't make Oklahoma somehow 'cancelled'. Oklahoma is Oklahoma, and has always existed. Roberts wrote a good dissenting argument, but if Congress wants to change the treaty, it will actually have to do it. Won't be a particular comfortable exit route though, which is likely why no Congress has really tried to do so. Yes this opens up a giant can of worms, but can't say they weren't warned. Getting past the bad takes and breathless hyperbole, it's the state as an institution of laws that loses power to enforce it's jurisdiction against Native members within the set boundaries of the treaty. But there is little impact to non-Natives, of which is the majority population. The question really was did McGirt, who is a Native American, commit his crime within these boundaries, and as such who has authority to try him? The state? No. The feds. Yes. As Gorsuch notes, it's not as if this tribe is completely without resources. It has it's own police force, jails, laws, court, and hospital system. McGirt was convicted in 1997. He will have to be re-tried again, and the feds can certainly do that, because of the serious nature of the crime. The state of Oklahoma has argued that this could have potential consequences for tax collection (likely) and many other disputed issues. It's Gorsuch's position that it doesn't matter. The law is the law, the treaty is the treaty. If you want to fix it, that's up to Congress to grow a pair.

 

Congress will not do anything, and I doubt the Feds or Tribal police will do anything with respect to the criminals that all of the sudden have essentially had their convictions overturned.  Wasn’t he person in this case a child molester.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

wonder why we dont hear so much from the NA community.  They have been and are still being hosed.

So what happens if someone has a 5 million dollar home, and all of sudden it belongs to a tribe

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It does seem obvious that its an issue Congress can clear up. In usual Congress fashion, it's something they've not wanted to tackle because there's little political winning here to correct. If the states via the people have no sovereignty over the land as drawn, the map should've been updated so people accurately understood the implications. The treaty needs to be rescinded and the Natives, while being allowed local sovereignty as any city or county might be, need to simply be part of their states properly.

[yuna628 9,527]

58 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Congress will not do anything, and I doubt the Feds or Tribal police will do anything with respect to the criminals that all of the sudden have essentially had their convictions overturned.  Wasn’t he person in this case a child molester.

I don't disagree with you at all. And Gorsuch is kinda like ''yeah I know guys, but this is the way YOU made it, so fix it. Until it's fixed this is how it's got to be.. and anyway you have been hosing Native Americans for ages!" He seems like he's pretty passionate on the subject. And yeah McGirt is a HORRIBLE guy. Deserves to fry.

17 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

wonder why we dont hear so much from the NA community.  They have been and are still being hosed.

So what happens if someone has a 5 million dollar home, and all of sudden it belongs to a tribe

It doesn't belong to the tribe per say. If you are non Native, laws apply to you via the state. They don't have authority to seize your home as of yet, nor do I think they would... but it is a complex thing. Technically the property also is in the domain of the feds, so as such I think property placed on the Native territory is still protected. Much of the land of Oklahoma was actually lost by the state pressuring Natives into selling it off in exchange for peace and safety. This is what remains. 

 

16 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It does seem obvious that its an issue Congress can clear up. In usual Congress fashion, it's something they've not wanted to tackle because there's little political winning here to correct. If the states via the people have no sovereignty over the land as drawn, the map should've been updated so people accurately understood the implications. The treaty needs to be rescinded and the Natives, while being allowed local sovereignty as any city or county might be, need to simply be part of their states properly.

Gorsuch actually doesn't disagree with you here. But that would be a radical kind of thing. Oklahoma would indeed look a lot different.. and then what would we do with a sovereign nation that is free of any laws but it's own smack dab in the middle of a US State? Technically Native American tribes are their own sovereigns anyway, but under the treaty the feds do have some sway to collect tax and prosecute criminal activity. Without the treaty it's solely up to the tribe and no other laws would apply but their own.

[Jayface 118]

44 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

wonder why we dont hear so much from the NA community.  They have been and are still being hosed.

So what happens if someone has a 5 million dollar home, and all of sudden it belongs to a tribe

Woooooooooo!!! 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

19 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Gorsuch actually doesn't disagree with you here. But that would be a radical kind of thing. Oklahoma would indeed look a lot different.. and then what would we do with a sovereign nation that is free of any laws but it's own smack dab in the middle of a US State? Technically Native American tribes are their own sovereigns anyway, but under the treaty the feds do have some sway to collect tax and prosecute criminal activity. Without the treaty it's solely up to the tribe and no other laws would apply but their own.

I don't think it's radical, it's simply reflecting the reality of that land, rather than employing the window dressing we currently have that allows Congress to kick the can down the road. It's really not a situation that's good for either party. While I don't agree significantly with the dissent, I can see what they're trying to do, I just think in their focus of the evolution of tribes is momentary and an attempt to right a Congressional wrong which they really have no business doing either.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 23,202]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I don't disagree with you at all. And Gorsuch is kinda like ''yeah I know guys, but this is the way YOU made it, so fix it. Until it's fixed this is how it's got to be.. and anyway you have been hosing Native Americans for ages!" He seems like he's pretty passionate on the subject. And yeah McGirt is a HORRIBLE guy. Deserves to fry.

It doesn't belong to the tribe per say. If you are non Native, laws apply to you via the state. They don't have authority to seize your home as of yet, nor do I think they would... but it is a complex thing. Technically the property also is in the domain of the feds, so as such I think property placed on the Native territory is still protected. Much of the land of Oklahoma was actually lost by the state pressuring Natives into selling it off in exchange for peace and safety. This is what remains. 

 

Gorsuch actually doesn't disagree with you here. But that would be a radical kind of thing. Oklahoma would indeed look a lot different.. and then what would we do with a sovereign nation that is free of any laws but it's own smack dab in the middle of a US State? Technically Native American tribes are their own sovereigns anyway, but under the treaty the feds do have some sway to collect tax and prosecute criminal activity. Without the treaty it's solely up to the tribe and no other laws would apply but their own.

I will agree, Gorsuch did. what Roberts should have done on the ACA case instead of crossing over to legislator.  It will be interesting how this shakes out.  I really doubt there will be additional prosecutions especially for the old cases, and as I said earlier, Congress will not do anything.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

7 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

what happens if someone has a 5 million dollar home, and all of sudden it belongs to a tribe

Same as when all of a sudden it belongs to a new ex-wife.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

41 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Same as when all of a sudden it belongs to a new ex-wife.

A famous writer from Ga. Lewis Grizzard one lamented.  Next time I feel the urge to get married I will buy a women I already hate a house 

[TBoneTX 43,020]

I remember the above, but more grammatically.