6 ms·

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatori

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The article https://bigislandnow.com/2018/08/08/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-state-in-appeal-relating-to-tmt/ https://bigislandnow.com/2018/08/08/supreme-court-rules-in-f... implies that the issues were largely procedural and this decision isn't actually deciding if any of the above are true. So I'm left seeing big claims, but no real idea on if those claims are true-but-ignored, mostly-not-true, or a fringe-group-only-viewpoint. (While the media coverage IMPLIES that those claims ARE decided, and it's that implication that bugs me)

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.
- codezero 8y ago
  I think that since it didn't voluntarily surrender its sovereignty, some might feel it should still have it, but I don't know too much about the subject, so maybe it's time for me to read up a bit.
  - sosborn 8y ago
    You hit the nail on the head. The stuff about pollution and interruption of cultural practices is more about the idea that those things are being forced upon native Hawaiians, much like annexation was. Not all native Hawaiians feel this way about the telescopes, but the ones that do are the ones protesting.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      > Not all native Hawaiians feel this way about the telescopes, but the ones that do are the ones protesting. Plus some other tribal folks from the rest of the US showed up to protest. I'm glad this was posted, now I know what the heck they were talking about when the relatives used the phrase "going to Hawaii to protest a volcano". I was a bit confused.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    I was in Kona for the Iron Man Worlds just a couple of weeks ago. We spent some time up and down the west coast there. And for what it's worth I saw more Kingdom of Hawaii flags than any other. On a side note I could move there tomorrow and take up surfing. So anybody willing to have a remote engineer working on Hawaii time just let me know...
    - codezero 8y ago
      Fwiw it’s probably not as beautiful but for the continental US I recommend San Diego for remote eng and surfing. There’s a bit less localism and it’s at least 70% as beautiful and probably 200% more convenient :)
- duxup 8y ago
  Presumably this is somewhat similar to other native american tribes where there are treaties and legal structures that allow them to make their case under that name / formalized what it means today?
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    The autonomy and sovereignty of continental tribes is severely curtailed by the US claim of plenary authority over them. They are independent nations largely in name only.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I'm not sure that ... has anything to do what I said.
    - dnautics 8y ago
      > They are independent nations largely in name only. I was under the impression that the "independent nations" concept implied independence from the states. Naturally as the power in the US has shifted away from the states towards the federal government the autonomy and sovereignty of the tribes has decreased.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        It's a bit more than that - New York can't ban Ohioans from their territory, but Native American tribes can. https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions > Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.
      - duxup 8y ago
        At least for those with actual reservations and treaties they are allowed quite a bit of self governance and such. They can make their own laws, form a government as they wish, tax, regulate, decide who is a member and such. That has not changed at all. It sounds strange, and it kind of is, but in reality life on a reservation in most cases is rough, few options to make a living, lots of substance abuse, tribal politics can be pretty petty and nasty. I lived near a reservation for a while and the first thing you think "oh man they have this nation inside a nation they could do a lot of things" but really life is rough there.
- komali2 8y ago
  Well, yes, that's the issue at hand. Probably legally you're just as correct as that issue recently where a bunch of tourists were stomping all over some hills that were sacred to Australian aborigines, but according to the Australian government were legal hiking paths. The most, legally, the aborigines could do was put up a sign saying "these hills are important to us for religious, please don't walk on them." There's a lot of issues going on right now that draw the majority of my energy (climate change, propagation of hate, etc), so unfortunately I can't bring myself to look into or exert effort into the moral debate of natives' rights, but I think it's a massive issue with huge implications and not nearly so clear-cut as some of the other ones we're dealing with (i.e., climate change is straightforward easy to argue about). The issue, as I see it: Take Native Americans in the USA. Outside the written-law rights they have regarding their reservations, one could argue their sovereignty was violated if, say, a plot of land bought in the 1600s (off-reservation) that happened to include a burial mound was developed on. One could also argue that, yes, their sovereignty was violated, but they failed to defend their sovereignty, and so it was relinquished (I don't like this because I think seizing via violence is fucked). One could also argue that they aren't the prime sovereign claim to that land - one tribe might have warred and taken it from another some 500 years prior, so why should the most recent tribe be considered the morally "sovereign" authority on the land? Which brings me to the point that really concerns me: Taiwan. Populated by natives that were mingling with mainland Chinese for centuries, before a total Japanese takeover. Japanese sovereign territory (by violence). But then, mainland Chinese take over, uh, "back again?" Maybe? Arguable. Either way, another violent sovereign takeover. And finally, a civil war in China between two political parties, with a huge swath of one side fleeing in defeat to Taiwan. Is that even a sovereign takeover, or a political shift? And what of the aborigines, during this time? Now China is claiming sovereignty over Taiwan, and from one point of view, they kind of do have a claim - Taiwan was technically Mainland Chinese territory, given back after Japan lost the war, and the Communist party did overthrow the Democratic party. However, the Communists did not successfully completely terminate the Democratic party (which is great because who wants more death), so on the other hand, I can see why ROC(Taiwan)'s claim to the island is also legitimate. Either way, I'm terrified PRC will enforce their self-proclaimed sovereignty over the nation (which is effectively non-existent at present) using violence, which I'm not sure ROC(Taiwan) would be able to withstand, and then I'm worried afterwards the rest of the world will let China get away with it for the slippery sovereign arguments listed above.
rtkwe 8y ago
> infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom Is there actually any legally recognized sovereignty for Hawaii or native Hawaiians? Tried doing a quick search but it all came back with an ongoing sovereignty movement but nothing similar to the Native American tribes.
- ergothus 8y ago
  My understanding (based on visiting hawaii as a tourist and not much else) is that no, there's not a US-legally recognized sovereignty, but there is a step back from: * "They voluntarily joined the US" language * the repression of culture - in particular but not limited to language, which was apparently ruthlessly quashed for a long while and is enjoying a lot more respect today, relatively speaking. In a courtroom I doubt this would count for much, but in a war of PR releases it can be significant, and most of what I found about this case was press releases.
  - jmisavage 8y ago
    There's a rich history of corporations and the us government screwing over Hawaiians. The monarchy was overthrown by a group of businessmen and sugar planters after they forced Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate. Two years later it became a US territory against the wishes of the natives. Then the sugar industry help keep it a territory for 60 years because they could import cheap foreign labor.
    - adrr 8y ago
      History of Hawaii is all about using force to take land from the population. First settler where from the Marquesas Islands and they were conquered by the Tahitians.
      - rootoor 8y ago
        What’s your point? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter that sovergty was taken violently from the Hawaiians because their ancestors conquered the original inhabitants hundreds of years ago? Would it be fair if Russia came in and took Hawaii from the US because the “History of Hawaii is all about using force to take land from the population”?
Thorondor 8y ago
I think the BBC report that I submitted earlier this morning [0] did a better job of discussing the environmentalists' case. In particular, it linked to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs's civil complaint [1] which is probably the best version of the arguments against the telescope. Summary: the complaint alleges that mismanagement of the telescope site, including poor financial planning and procedural issues, has led to a history of hazardous material spills and car accidents, and that failure to implement the 2009 Comprehensive Management Plan constitutes a breach of contract. There is also a longer explanation of why Mauna Kea is sacred to native Hawaiians. For the record, I strongly support building the TMT. But the opposition isn't totally illegitimate and I think it's worth covering both sides fairly. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46046864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46046864 [1] https://19of32x2yl33s8o4xza0gf14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-11-07-Complaint.pdf https://19of32x2yl33s8o4xza0gf14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  So it sounds like it's less that the entire enterprise is offensive on the face of it (like building on Uluru in Australia would be), and more that the locals don't trust the management to be respectful of the land and not fuck shit up?
  - Natsu 8y ago
    That's the sort of argument that was made in court, but see the link I posted above for more background on why they feel so strongly about this.
  - SerLava 8y ago
    There are people who consider Mauna Kea to be sacred and there's not really anything that could argue against a specific person's particular belief. However I will say that there is no widespread religious activity involving the top of the mountain. There are far more people performing ceremonies and leaving sacrifices at Kilauea or even just various heiau, a type of man-made temple site. Even that is a very low proportion of native Hawaiians. People feel respectful of it and it has widespread meaning but these feelings are barely above average compared to the respect felt for all other geographical regions and features of Hawaii. My point here is that there's no substantive disruption to anyone's religious expression. Even these religious activities are pretty rare, as Christianity was pushed pretty hard once missionaries converted the royalty in the 19th century. Most of the time when people are against building telescopes, the conversation seems to carry on to reveal that it's kind of a proxy used to air greivances for the long history of ethno-political issues. There was a reference above referring to the telescopes as a violation of the Kingdom of Hawaii which hasn't existed for over a century- to include a telescope under that standard you would literally require the formation of a new country. Obviously in that case, building a dog house by the ocean would be equally impermissible. Ancient Hawaiians took their religion very very seriously, and still had quarries up there due to high quality stone availability, so they didn't seem to think technological exploitation was much of an affront. From what I know about Uluru, it's far more significant to a much larger swath of people, and it's a much smaller area than a whole mountain. Someone could have a different perspective than I do or might know something that would invalidate some of the points I made, and I welcome the input.
HappyRobot 8y ago
For anyone interested in more information about the history and tensions behind the project, the Offshore podcast (a podcast that examines race and identity relations in Hawaii) produced very good season on the TMT[0]. Mauna Kea is sacred and the promises and ownership disputes over building on the mountain is an issue that should not be overlooked. [0] http://feeds.civilbeat.org/civilbeatoffshore http://feeds.civilbeat.org/civilbeatoffshore
lupire 8y ago
This is a common problem with Supreme Court cases. They cases often touch on major, substantive issues, but the legal question that the Court decides is a technical detail. You can interpret this as either: Judges decide how they want the case to go, and can find a loophole for either the appellant or the appellee (as well evidenced by the frequency of 5-4 decisions); or that the public simple misunderstands the meaning of most cases' decisions. The problem is exacerbated by the Supreme Court's limited time-budget for cases, and its interest in taking on a wide diversity of cases. A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases. Since the thing that sets precedent is the rationale, not the outcome alone, this isn't really true.
latj 8y ago
Hawaii is in a unique position because there are still plenty of native Hawaiians around. They arent a native tribe recognized by the U.S. government and some number (most in my mind) dont want to be. Because the overthrow of the last government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was done under shady conditions (basically the sugar barons formed a provisional government and then told the U.S. that they'd like to become a part of the U.S. They did this to join the free trade area that U.S. states enjoy to lower their shipping costs. They had actually tried this once before and then President Grover Cleveland shut them down. He stated that Hawaii had an existing government and seemed to have popular support of the people. But later they tried again and that time the U.S. agreed to annex Hawaii. It was operated essentially as a colony from then on until the 1950's. So Hawaii is a normal U.S. state. It has state legislation. It obeys federal laws. Except, occasionally native Hawaiians will stand up about some issue. And when that happens, sometimes everyone else will bend toward their perspective. A lot of normal people do so out of respect for native Hawaiians. Politicians do it because it is politically tough to stand in opposition of Hawaiians. As a side note, there are very few republicans in Hawaii. There are none in the state legislature or U.S. representatives. There are a growing number of republicans that grow from the strong military presence. The thing is, when Hawaiians protest its hard to figure out who or how many they represent. Because there is no official Hawaiian government. (There is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). But dont even get me started. lol) So no one can say "Hawaiians dont want the thirty meter telescope (TMT)". You can only say, "those people protesting over there dont want the TMT". My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii. When people started talking about the telescope students started to organize, hold meetings, and invite speakers. At one point the students built an ahu which is a an altar built out of stones right in the main field when you come upon the university, next to the president's office. The University is probably too scared to remove it. Months later the students planted trees around it. It'll be there forever. Some say that native Hawaiians came to some professors at the University and asked them to help organize but that the core of the anti-telescope movement are native Hawaiians. Its impossible to say. There has never been any kind of survey or vote of native Hawaiians- which itself would be impossible as there is no real registry of native Hawaiians. This was a long way to say, the only reason this went court was because of protest that, at least in part, included some native Hawaiians. No matter what the court decides, nothing is certain. It could still be slowed for years or indefinitely. If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.
idoescompooters 8y ago
I currently work for one of the big agencies behind astronomical observing, and my boss was telling me today (an hour before I show him this article) about the unnecessary amount of environmental hurdles this project has gone through. And he mentioned that during the protests that occurred at the construction site, equipment was actually vandalized.
- PopePompous 8y ago
  Yes, and fiber optic cables to the summit were cut.
hokuula 8y ago
Here is the link to the actual opinion http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCOT-17-0000777.pdf http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCO... The HSC held that Native Hawaiian rights would not be substantially impacted by the TMT, which was an issue in the administrative hearing that took place from 2016-2017, and what was being appealed in this HSC case. What was procedural was the previous administrative hearing was ruled invalid because BLNR granted the permit before convening the hearing, so those that wanted to voice their grievances weren't given a real opportunity to. HSC said that violated due process and remanded the case for a second administrative hearing. It is this second hearing, regarding the TMT building permit, that this court case deals with. The judge in the administrative hearing, a retired state judge, found that there would be no substantial impacts to natural resources, most importantly water resources, but also cultural and archaeological resources. The University of Hawaii brought in a hydrologist with expertise in local (Big Island) water resources to demonstrate why and the hearing officer (the administrative judge) accepted that based on the hydrologists scientific expertise in local water issues. It was then found to be a valid conclusion when appealed to the HSC. If you want to read the conclusion of the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, her findings of fact and conclusions of law can be read here https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officers-Proposal.pdf https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officer... (long: 305 pages). This was what BLNR used to grant the permit. And as a matter of it being so thorough and as a matter of everyone being a chance to voice their opinion, the HSC upheld the permit and the conclusions of the hearing officer.
chrisweekly 8y ago
>"... Hawaiian Kingdom" Who is the king of Hawaii?
- Natsu 8y ago
  David Kalakaua was the last one, in 1882. http://www.royalty.nu/America/Hawaii.html http://www.royalty.nu/America/Hawaii.html

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.

codezero 8y ago
I think that since it didn't voluntarily surrender its sovereignty, some might feel it should still have it, but I don't know too much about the subject, so maybe it's time for me to read up a bit.
- sosborn 8y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. The stuff about pollution and interruption of cultural practices is more about the idea that those things are being forced upon native Hawaiians, much like annexation was. Not all native Hawaiians feel this way about the telescopes, but the ones that do are the ones protesting.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    > Not all native Hawaiians feel this way about the telescopes, but the ones that do are the ones protesting. Plus some other tribal folks from the rest of the US showed up to protest. I'm glad this was posted, now I know what the heck they were talking about when the relatives used the phrase "going to Hawaii to protest a volcano". I was a bit confused.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I was in Kona for the Iron Man Worlds just a couple of weeks ago. We spent some time up and down the west coast there. And for what it's worth I saw more Kingdom of Hawaii flags than any other. On a side note I could move there tomorrow and take up surfing. So anybody willing to have a remote engineer working on Hawaii time just let me know...
  - codezero 8y ago
    Fwiw it’s probably not as beautiful but for the continental US I recommend San Diego for remote eng and surfing. There’s a bit less localism and it’s at least 70% as beautiful and probably 200% more convenient :)
duxup 8y ago
Presumably this is somewhat similar to other native american tribes where there are treaties and legal structures that allow them to make their case under that name / formalized what it means today?
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The autonomy and sovereignty of continental tribes is severely curtailed by the US claim of plenary authority over them. They are independent nations largely in name only.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I'm not sure that ... has anything to do what I said.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    > They are independent nations largely in name only. I was under the impression that the "independent nations" concept implied independence from the states. Naturally as the power in the US has shifted away from the states towards the federal government the autonomy and sovereignty of the tribes has decreased.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      It's a bit more than that - New York can't ban Ohioans from their territory, but Native American tribes can. https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions > Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.
    - duxup 8y ago
      At least for those with actual reservations and treaties they are allowed quite a bit of self governance and such. They can make their own laws, form a government as they wish, tax, regulate, decide who is a member and such. That has not changed at all. It sounds strange, and it kind of is, but in reality life on a reservation in most cases is rough, few options to make a living, lots of substance abuse, tribal politics can be pretty petty and nasty. I lived near a reservation for a while and the first thing you think "oh man they have this nation inside a nation they could do a lot of things" but really life is rough there.
komali2 8y ago
Well, yes, that's the issue at hand. Probably legally you're just as correct as that issue recently where a bunch of tourists were stomping all over some hills that were sacred to Australian aborigines, but according to the Australian government were legal hiking paths. The most, legally, the aborigines could do was put up a sign saying "these hills are important to us for religious, please don't walk on them." There's a lot of issues going on right now that draw the majority of my energy (climate change, propagation of hate, etc), so unfortunately I can't bring myself to look into or exert effort into the moral debate of natives' rights, but I think it's a massive issue with huge implications and not nearly so clear-cut as some of the other ones we're dealing with (i.e., climate change is straightforward easy to argue about). The issue, as I see it: Take Native Americans in the USA. Outside the written-law rights they have regarding their reservations, one could argue their sovereignty was violated if, say, a plot of land bought in the 1600s (off-reservation) that happened to include a burial mound was developed on. One could also argue that, yes, their sovereignty was violated, but they failed to defend their sovereignty, and so it was relinquished (I don't like this because I think seizing via violence is fucked). One could also argue that they aren't the prime sovereign claim to that land - one tribe might have warred and taken it from another some 500 years prior, so why should the most recent tribe be considered the morally "sovereign" authority on the land? Which brings me to the point that really concerns me: Taiwan. Populated by natives that were mingling with mainland Chinese for centuries, before a total Japanese takeover. Japanese sovereign territory (by violence). But then, mainland Chinese take over, uh, "back again?" Maybe? Arguable. Either way, another violent sovereign takeover. And finally, a civil war in China between two political parties, with a huge swath of one side fleeing in defeat to Taiwan. Is that even a sovereign takeover, or a political shift? And what of the aborigines, during this time? Now China is claiming sovereignty over Taiwan, and from one point of view, they kind of do have a claim - Taiwan was technically Mainland Chinese territory, given back after Japan lost the war, and the Communist party did overthrow the Democratic party. However, the Communists did not successfully completely terminate the Democratic party (which is great because who wants more death), so on the other hand, I can see why ROC(Taiwan)'s claim to the island is also legitimate. Either way, I'm terrified PRC will enforce their self-proclaimed sovereignty over the nation (which is effectively non-existent at present) using violence, which I'm not sure ROC(Taiwan) would be able to withstand, and then I'm worried afterwards the rest of the world will let China get away with it for the slippery sovereign arguments listed above.

rtkwe 8y ago

> infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom Is there actually any legally recognized sovereignty for Hawaii or native Hawaiians? Tried doing a quick search but it all came back with an ongoing sovereignty movement but nothing similar to the Native American tribes.

ergothus 8y ago
My understanding (based on visiting hawaii as a tourist and not much else) is that no, there's not a US-legally recognized sovereignty, but there is a step back from: * "They voluntarily joined the US" language * the repression of culture - in particular but not limited to language, which was apparently ruthlessly quashed for a long while and is enjoying a lot more respect today, relatively speaking. In a courtroom I doubt this would count for much, but in a war of PR releases it can be significant, and most of what I found about this case was press releases.
- jmisavage 8y ago
  There's a rich history of corporations and the us government screwing over Hawaiians. The monarchy was overthrown by a group of businessmen and sugar planters after they forced Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate. Two years later it became a US territory against the wishes of the natives. Then the sugar industry help keep it a territory for 60 years because they could import cheap foreign labor.
  - adrr 8y ago
    History of Hawaii is all about using force to take land from the population. First settler where from the Marquesas Islands and they were conquered by the Tahitians.
    - rootoor 8y ago
      What’s your point? Are you saying that it doesn’t matter that sovergty was taken violently from the Hawaiians because their ancestors conquered the original inhabitants hundreds of years ago? Would it be fair if Russia came in and took Hawaii from the US because the “History of Hawaii is all about using force to take land from the population”?

Thorondor 8y ago

I think the BBC report that I submitted earlier this morning [0] did a better job of discussing the environmentalists' case. In particular, it linked to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs's civil complaint [1] which is probably the best version of the arguments against the telescope. Summary: the complaint alleges that mismanagement of the telescope site, including poor financial planning and procedural issues, has led to a history of hazardous material spills and car accidents, and that failure to implement the 2009 Comprehensive Management Plan constitutes a breach of contract. There is also a longer explanation of why Mauna Kea is sacred to native Hawaiians. For the record, I strongly support building the TMT. But the opposition isn't totally illegitimate and I think it's worth covering both sides fairly. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46046864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46046864 [1] https://19of32x2yl33s8o4xza0gf14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-11-07-Complaint.pdf https://19of32x2yl33s8o4xza0gf14-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
So it sounds like it's less that the entire enterprise is offensive on the face of it (like building on Uluru in Australia would be), and more that the locals don't trust the management to be respectful of the land and not fuck shit up?
- Natsu 8y ago
  That's the sort of argument that was made in court, but see the link I posted above for more background on why they feel so strongly about this.
- SerLava 8y ago
  There are people who consider Mauna Kea to be sacred and there's not really anything that could argue against a specific person's particular belief. However I will say that there is no widespread religious activity involving the top of the mountain. There are far more people performing ceremonies and leaving sacrifices at Kilauea or even just various heiau, a type of man-made temple site. Even that is a very low proportion of native Hawaiians. People feel respectful of it and it has widespread meaning but these feelings are barely above average compared to the respect felt for all other geographical regions and features of Hawaii. My point here is that there's no substantive disruption to anyone's religious expression. Even these religious activities are pretty rare, as Christianity was pushed pretty hard once missionaries converted the royalty in the 19th century. Most of the time when people are against building telescopes, the conversation seems to carry on to reveal that it's kind of a proxy used to air greivances for the long history of ethno-political issues. There was a reference above referring to the telescopes as a violation of the Kingdom of Hawaii which hasn't existed for over a century- to include a telescope under that standard you would literally require the formation of a new country. Obviously in that case, building a dog house by the ocean would be equally impermissible. Ancient Hawaiians took their religion very very seriously, and still had quarries up there due to high quality stone availability, so they didn't seem to think technological exploitation was much of an affront. From what I know about Uluru, it's far more significant to a much larger swath of people, and it's a much smaller area than a whole mountain. Someone could have a different perspective than I do or might know something that would invalidate some of the points I made, and I welcome the input.

HappyRobot 8y ago

For anyone interested in more information about the history and tensions behind the project, the Offshore podcast (a podcast that examines race and identity relations in Hawaii) produced very good season on the TMT[0]. Mauna Kea is sacred and the promises and ownership disputes over building on the mountain is an issue that should not be overlooked. [0] http://feeds.civilbeat.org/civilbeatoffshore http://feeds.civilbeat.org/civilbeatoffshore

lupire 8y ago

This is a common problem with Supreme Court cases. They cases often touch on major, substantive issues, but the legal question that the Court decides is a technical detail. You can interpret this as either: Judges decide how they want the case to go, and can find a loophole for either the appellant or the appellee (as well evidenced by the frequency of 5-4 decisions); or that the public simple misunderstands the meaning of most cases' decisions. The problem is exacerbated by the Supreme Court's limited time-budget for cases, and its interest in taking on a wide diversity of cases. A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases. Since the thing that sets precedent is the rationale, not the outcome alone, this isn't really true.

latj 8y ago

Hawaii is in a unique position because there are still plenty of native Hawaiians around. They arent a native tribe recognized by the U.S. government and some number (most in my mind) dont want to be. Because the overthrow of the last government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was done under shady conditions (basically the sugar barons formed a provisional government and then told the U.S. that they'd like to become a part of the U.S. They did this to join the free trade area that U.S. states enjoy to lower their shipping costs. They had actually tried this once before and then President Grover Cleveland shut them down. He stated that Hawaii had an existing government and seemed to have popular support of the people. But later they tried again and that time the U.S. agreed to annex Hawaii. It was operated essentially as a colony from then on until the 1950's. So Hawaii is a normal U.S. state. It has state legislation. It obeys federal laws. Except, occasionally native Hawaiians will stand up about some issue. And when that happens, sometimes everyone else will bend toward their perspective. A lot of normal people do so out of respect for native Hawaiians. Politicians do it because it is politically tough to stand in opposition of Hawaiians. As a side note, there are very few republicans in Hawaii. There are none in the state legislature or U.S. representatives. There are a growing number of republicans that grow from the strong military presence. The thing is, when Hawaiians protest its hard to figure out who or how many they represent. Because there is no official Hawaiian government. (There is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). But dont even get me started. lol) So no one can say "Hawaiians dont want the thirty meter telescope (TMT)". You can only say, "those people protesting over there dont want the TMT". My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii. When people started talking about the telescope students started to organize, hold meetings, and invite speakers. At one point the students built an ahu which is a an altar built out of stones right in the main field when you come upon the university, next to the president's office. The University is probably too scared to remove it. Months later the students planted trees around it. It'll be there forever. Some say that native Hawaiians came to some professors at the University and asked them to help organize but that the core of the anti-telescope movement are native Hawaiians. Its impossible to say. There has never been any kind of survey or vote of native Hawaiians- which itself would be impossible as there is no real registry of native Hawaiians. This was a long way to say, the only reason this went court was because of protest that, at least in part, included some native Hawaiians. No matter what the court decides, nothing is certain. It could still be slowed for years or indefinitely. If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.

idoescompooters 8y ago

I currently work for one of the big agencies behind astronomical observing, and my boss was telling me today (an hour before I show him this article) about the unnecessary amount of environmental hurdles this project has gone through. And he mentioned that during the protests that occurred at the construction site, equipment was actually vandalized.

PopePompous 8y ago
Yes, and fiber optic cables to the summit were cut.

hokuula 8y ago

Here is the link to the actual opinion http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCOT-17-0000777.pdf http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCO... The HSC held that Native Hawaiian rights would not be substantially impacted by the TMT, which was an issue in the administrative hearing that took place from 2016-2017, and what was being appealed in this HSC case. What was procedural was the previous administrative hearing was ruled invalid because BLNR granted the permit before convening the hearing, so those that wanted to voice their grievances weren't given a real opportunity to. HSC said that violated due process and remanded the case for a second administrative hearing. It is this second hearing, regarding the TMT building permit, that this court case deals with. The judge in the administrative hearing, a retired state judge, found that there would be no substantial impacts to natural resources, most importantly water resources, but also cultural and archaeological resources. The University of Hawaii brought in a hydrologist with expertise in local (Big Island) water resources to demonstrate why and the hearing officer (the administrative judge) accepted that based on the hydrologists scientific expertise in local water issues. It was then found to be a valid conclusion when appealed to the HSC. If you want to read the conclusion of the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, her findings of fact and conclusions of law can be read here https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officers-Proposal.pdf https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officer... (long: 305 pages). This was what BLNR used to grant the permit. And as a matter of it being so thorough and as a matter of everyone being a chance to voice their opinion, the HSC upheld the permit and the conclusions of the hearing officer.

chrisweekly 8y ago

>"... Hawaiian Kingdom" Who is the king of Hawaii?

Natsu 8y ago
David Kalakaua was the last one, in 1882. http://www.royalty.nu/America/Hawaii.html http://www.royalty.nu/America/Hawaii.html