18 ms·

I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-

• joecool1029 6y ago
  > "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law." Yeah, ok then. I guess that means we can start dunking Karens in rivers again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude#United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude#United_States_law
  • acdha 6y ago
    We never stopped the general concept of contracts being enforced — this is just a case of a majority in power choosing not to enforce them in one specific case.
• ponker 6y ago
  What Gorsuch's opinion does directly imply is that the "promise" to the Creek can be revoked by Congress at any time, i.e. it's hardly a "promise" at all.
  • rkuykendall-com 6y ago
    Literally nothing in the legal system is permanent for perpetuity. Even the constitution can be amended in any way. All laws, treaties, etc. can be undone with enough effort.
    • int_19h 6y ago
      Not quite. It is, in theory, possible to pass an amendment to the constitution, that would prohibit further amendments to parts of it. Quite a few countries have such "immutable clauses" in their constitutions.
      • rkuykendall-com 6y ago
        Those countries can just make new constitutions. There is literally nothing stopping them.
  • notyourwork 6y ago
    The court is highlighting that congress needs to be consistent. Make a willing refusal to original promise, otherwise keep said promise. The courts job is not to decide on the promise but to identify the congress as responsible for consistency with promises made.
  • kelnos 6y ago
    Well, yes, but that's just a fact of legislation. There are no "promises"; there are just laws that are easy or hard to change. If we were to amend the constitution to set aside land for native peoples, then that's probably the closest we can get to a promise, as that's probably the hardest kind of law to change -- but it's still not a promise, because it can be changed. Sure, Congressional legislation could take away that land. That would be a lousy thing for them to do. Unfortunately since I doubt Native American groups are a big enough voting bloc, the only thing that would stop Congress from doing that would be enough negative public opinion from people who are not Native American. Hopefully there are enough people of that sort.
    • 6y ago
• brobdingnagians 6y ago
  I do applaud that thinking; I hope it sets a precedent that can be used more widely. I hope they apply it more widely to things they don't necessarily ideologically agree with. Civil society needs more honesty and dedication to keeping your word, even when that is painful. That might lead to people thinking more carefully about where they stand and what they say as well.
  • dr_dshiv 6y ago
    Amen. This isn't a nonsequitor, I swear: why can't freedom of religion be used to legalize drugs? And, why can't Indian reservations, especially, sell what they please?
    • int_19h 6y ago
      > why can't freedom of religion be used to legalize drugs? It can, and has been - this is the origin of the so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...
    • virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
      > why can't freedom of religion be used to legalize drugs This is exactly the sort of thing that the Satanic Temple (not to be confused with the Church of Satan, etc.) investigates and does activism about. Well worth donating to IMO!
    • rudolph9 6y ago
      I think use of regulated drugs is legal during a religious service https://www.pewforum.org/2006/02/21/supreme-court-rules-that-religious-group-can-use-illegal-drug-in-their-worship-services/ https://www.pewforum.org/2006/02/21/supreme-court-rules-that... And, again I think, reservations are exempt from state laws/taxes and to certain extent able to make/enforce their own laws/taxes but they still need to follow federal laws.
      • beenBoutIT 6y ago
• knodi123 6y ago
  > Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he officially owns it! I understand the difference, but I feel like it would be more proper to say "Unlawful acts performed long ago, are hardly ever enough to amend the law."
  • jt2190 6y ago
    It’s unclear, but it sounds like you’re saying that Texas law expressly allows this. Isn’t this the opposite of what happened in Oklahoma, i.e. there never was a law that reduced the government’s treaty obligations, so the law as written still stands? In other words, in both cases the laws, as written, were followed.
  • schmichael 6y ago
    What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited statement refers to an unlawful act, over time, attempting to override the law. In most (all in the US?) jurisdictions a law regarding prescriptive easements or adverse possession probably makes your neighbor's actions legal. The entire point of this ruling is that congress never passed a similar law to make this sort of action legal.
    • kelnos 6y ago
      I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, sounds completely bonkers to me.
• alasdair_ 6y ago
  >"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law." Based on this logic, I'm sure that the USA will be paying for all that tea they dumped in the harbor any day now...
  • dTal 6y ago
    "Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be paid for, all ninety thousand pounds[citation needed] (which, at two shillings per pound, came to £9,000, or £1.15 million [2014, approx. $1.7 million US]).[76] Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down.[77]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Reaction
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    They are safe on a technicality there as they never try to claim continuity with old laws and new laws. Even if dumping the shipments of foreign merchants is illegal under both sets of laws or indeed copied verbatim it is breaking of the old set of law and not the new law as it wasn't "born" yet.
  • TMWNN 6y ago
    The Treaty of Paris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)) ending the Revolutionary War, and Jay Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty) together settled all such outstanding debts.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• millirem 6y ago
  You can also listen to the oral arguments here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-9526 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-95...
• mirimir 6y ago
  Wow. That is just so damn amazing! Also, TFA notes: > In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole. So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma could be affected. And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.
  • int_19h 6y ago
    It would be interesting if the long-term outcome will be the revival of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah.
  • ethbro 6y ago
    > the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York Anyone can claim anything they want. What is relevant here, and why this case was decided the way it was, is that the federal government and the tribe entered into a legally binding, clear contract. Lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for a large piece of what is now Oklahoma, in perpetuity. And Congress never explicitly reneged on that contract. Ergo, it still stands. Should the Mohawk produce a similarly ironclad agreement regarding New York, they would then have a claim.
    • mirimir 6y ago
      I found this:[0] > In February 2005, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (a traditional Haudenosaunee government), the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe , and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne signed an agreement with Governor George Pataki to resolve their historic claim to lands in Northern New York. > Represented by the Indian Law Resource Center, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs approved the agreement only after years of vigorous advocacy to ensure that the deal adequately protected the interests of their community and of future generations of Mohawks. “Through a lot of hard work at home and at the negotiating table, the Council of Chiefs has forged an agreement they can be very proud of,” said Indian Law Resource Center attorney Alex Page. > The settlement agreement resolves legal claims first filed in federal court nearly twenty-five years ago. Those claims site repeated violations of a federal treaty confirming Mohawk land rights. Under the settlement, the Mohawks will receive lands and monetary compensation, as well as the opportunity to further expand their territory through purchases from willing sellers. The agreement does not include casinos or taxation, two issues the Mohawks successfully fought to keep separate from the land claim. But near the end, I see this: > Although legislation implementing the settlement passed the New York Assembly in 2005, the State Senate was not able to vote on the measure. We hope to see such legislation passed in the near future. So maybe it's still in limbo. Edit: From ciabattabread's comment, I gather that it remains unresolved.[1] 0) https://indianlaw.org/molr/landrights/mohawk https://indianlaw.org/molr/landrights/mohawk 1) https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary
• TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  I love reading court judgements, they often make the hairs on the back of the hairs on my neck stand on end. Such powerful writing by those we've vested great authority.
• sytelus 6y ago
  Wait, so congress can throw away promises at its whims that was supposed to last until perpetuity? And SC will be fine with that as long as promise was thrown away explicitly?
  • icelancer 6y ago
    SCOTUS does not rule on your second question. The first is a well-known flaw in American government, which Gorsuch quashed with his opinion. Effectively, it reads: Congress, this is your problem, not ours.
  • jlg23 6y ago
    That's exactly what courts are for: Application of laws created by the legislative. And yes, the SC should be fine with whatever congress does as long as laws are obeyed in the legislative process itself.
  • 74ls00 6y ago
    That’s what it means for a legislature to be sovereign — you kind of need the ability for future people to reverse past decisions to have a functioning democracy
    • simonh 6y ago
      We have this principle here in the UK as well. No parliament can ever be constrained in it's actions by any previous parliament. This came up in the Brexit controversies when the government tried to mandate an exit date as being immutable by future legislation, but the Speaker wouldn't have it. In that case some Brexiteers cried foul that it was overreach by the Speaker, but of course such a weapon could equally be used to make our membership of the EU irrevocable. It's a sound principle.
• SmokeyHamster 6y ago
  >To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. Interesting logic. Now do Roe v Wade. Are they going to overturn that too because it allows the injustice of the murder of millions of unborn Americans? Probably not. Funny how Stare Decisis goes out the window when it's an issue the justices care about, yet conveniently reapply it when present day utility outweighs historical injustice.
  • georgestephanis 6y ago
    You're using the same word -- Justice -- to mean two things. The court means justice as a violation of the law. You mean it as a violation of your opinion of what is right and wrong. Whether your like it or not, Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are the settled court cases, and legal justice is what flows from that. Calling what is legal "unjust" because you disagree with it further reinforces the need for this decision.