17 ms·

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case,

• nostromo 6y ago
  If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. That isn't an invitation for the executive branch (or judiciary) to overreach. In theory congress could go years without passing a single law, and that would be fine. It would signal that the current laws are sufficient. (As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so even if they didn't pass any new laws, the legal code will still change every year.)
  • Angostura 6y ago
    > If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. ... and therefore the promise is still in force and should be upheld.
    • bilbo0s 6y ago
      True. In this case, either way, half of Oklahoma belongs to the tribe. Congress has not taken it away in the legally prescribed manner, therefore SCOTUS has no choice but to say that until congress does, the promise has to be upheld. Congress has to do its job. Or not. Whichever it chooses. But it can't rely on the courts to do its job. The courts are right to let everything sit exactly where it is, and drop the entire matter back in the lap of congress.
      • kube-system 6y ago
        > In this case, either way, half of Oklahoma belongs to the tribe. If I am not mistaken, this ruling only pertains to the Major Crimes Act[0]. It doesn't mean half of Oklahoma "belongs to the tribe", it just means half of Oklahoma doesn't have criminal jurisdiction for a short list of crimes when they are committed by tribal citizens. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act
  • elliekelly 6y ago
    And this is exactly what the court ruled - if Congress intended to withdraw from or change the agreement they’re well aware of how to make that happen. And they didn’t make it happen so they must not have intended to change anything. I would assume (haven’t read the whole opinion yet) that nothing about this ruling now prohibits Congress from exercising their authority to take any further action.
  • calvinmorrison 6y ago
    A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating. "Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches. Such timidity forsakes the Court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government." . This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare. Things like DACA _need_ to be written in stone to avoid forcing the supreme court to become the effective legislator instead of having congress pass a law that enacts it as an actual program.
    • amznthrwaway 6y ago
      > This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare. This is an inaccurate summary of the decision. The fact that you gave it, after giving an accurate summary of the dissent is very telling. It indicates that only a fool would trust you on political matters as you are a willful liar who does not respect your audience. I eagerly await your correction and apology. Just kidding, I am fully aware that you have no respect for truth, and that you have no central morality.
    • war1025 6y ago
      The more I learn about Justice Thomas, the more I like him.
      • deleted 6y ago
  • landryraccoon 6y ago
    > no change is necessary. This could mean a lot of things. Do you mean no change to the law is necessary? SCOTUS is upholding that principle. It is saying that the law as written stands. The Judiciary is not overreaching here. They are doing exactly what their job says - they're interpreting existing laws, not writing new laws.
  • tony_cannistra 6y ago
    I understand your point, but I fear you may misunderstand, because I believe the Decision is in line with your views. The justices' point is that congress, in its inaction, has not enabled the reduction in Creek reservations that has been perpetrated through large-scale disenfranchisement all all levels of governance, actions which are in direct conflict with the reservation treaty signed in perpetuity. For these actions to be legal, Congress must have authorized them. This has not happened and therefore, as the justices rule, these actions are unconstitutional.
    • nostromo 6y ago
      No, I understand, and agree with the decision. My disagreement is with people who excuse executive overreach by saying, "congress refused to act." Put another way, they're saying, "I had to work around the law to get what I wanted."
  • rtkwe 6y ago
    > (As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so even if they didn't pass any new laws, the legal code will still change every year.) Normally this wouldn't be so bad, Congress is bad at making small evidence based changes on a reasonable timeline so instead they setup the rules for making the rules and the goals and instantiate or grant that authority to a division of the executive. Unfortunately it seems the courts have become very enthralled to varying degrees to the unitary executive theory which makes corralling that power more difficult.
  • intopieces 6y ago
    > If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made. To say otherwise is akin to saying that, because you and your husband can’t agree on where to eat for dinner, you must not be hungry. Both parties might believe that a law needs to be changed, but changed in opposite directions: one might want it repealed, the other strengthened.
    • bhupy 6y ago
      > This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made. That is actually literally what it means. The way the Union is set up, there is a certain amount of consensus necessary to pass legislation over 50 States across 300+ million people. If there is a deadlock, then it's the system telling you that the consensus isn't met. In a Federal system, this means that the next best place to (try to) pass the law is at the State level, where you may have less of a deadlock.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        This is by far one of the pieces a lot of people seem to miss. The system was set up for gridlock in hopes that it will temper some of the more dangerous tendencies of powerful and ambitious men.
        • fzzzy 6y ago
          Thanks for this bit of insight. It really explains a lot, and it actually makes sense to me now.
      • intopieces 6y ago
        It does indicate a consensus is not met, and merely that; the GP claimed the this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on inaction, a leap in logic that is unfounded because it ignores the political game theory that is employed in obstructionism. It also ignores the fundamental brokenness of the system through a sort of circular logic: things didn’t change since they didn’t need to be changed.
  • hinkley 6y ago
    The judicial branch can decide that a law is not constitutional. It's then Congress' job to find the political will to make the law constitutional. Either by altering it, or amending the constitution. It's a governor on the system. Only the important stuff is supposed to make it past all three branches unscathed. It either has to be something populist - everyone wants it so I won't get voted out of office - or it needs to be worth spending a ton of political power. When Congress is overwhelmingly in favor of a law, they can prevent a presidential veto. But that degree of unanimity is rarely free. It cost people something else, so it better be worth the opportunity cost.
• war1025 6y ago
  > because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. In some ways we're probably fortunate that the other two branches have picked up the slack, as much as we (myself included) like to complain about it.
  • hinkley 6y ago
    Abdicating some responsibilities and becoming positively petty on the ones they've decided to focus on. It's like the old joke about Academia: the political infighting is so intense because the stakes are so low.
    • airstrike 6y ago
      Or as Mark Manson put it, people give so many fucks about petty things because they have nothing more important to give a fuck about. https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713 https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv...
  • hvs 6y ago
    Unfortunately, that precisely the opinion that the Romans came to as well.
    • iheartblocks 6y ago
      Can you expand on this?
      • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        I believe the claim is that the Roman emperors came about because the Roman senate became so mired in infighting that it was incapable of governing. I'm not a historian, but from what I understand, there is at least an element of truth in the claim.
• spaetzleesser 6y ago
  "As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should be left to the legislative body. " Agreed. Congress is way too addicted to political grandstanding and partial fighting instead of making laws to clarify the situation. It seems pretty clear that with all the 5-4 divisions the Constitution is not precise enough to decide these things unambiguously.
• hinkley 6y ago
  > our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is We need more Civics classes for students. Branches of the Federal Government being put into the decision because of a massive failure of another is exactly why we have 3 branches. It's rock-paper-scissors. Checks and balances. Which is why, for instance, people squawk so much when the executive branch imagines itself new powers it was not granted.
  • hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    I disagree with your assertion that this "is exactly why we have 3 branches". The normal idea behind "checks-and-balances" is that if one branch exceeds their authority, the other two branches can serve as a check on abuse of that authority. The argument being made by GP, though, is pretty much the opposite: Congress isn't overstepping their authority, they're abdicating it. It's basically like they want to be 'checked' by the Supreme Court, because they don't want to have to take a clear stand in the first place.
    • krapp 6y ago
      I feel like that's implied by the "balance" part of "checks and balances." It's also simply the fact that politics abhors a power vacuum. If one branch of government abdicates its power, that slack has to be taken up elsewhere.
      • wnoise 6y ago
        I would have hoped it could be taken up by the people.
        • krapp 6y ago
          The people have ceded their authority in this regard as well, through their own apathy and cynicism. Democracy requires an educated and engaged voting populace that actually believes effective government can exist and politicians should be qualified and held up to a standard.
• specialist 6y ago
  I've recently adopted both Francis Fukuyama's vetocracy thesis as well as Ezra Klein's prescription for majoritarian rule. Yes, both are major oversimplifications to a complicated situation, with path dependencies and subtle counterintuitive cofactors. But it's good battle cry. We need more accountability, more transparency, more democracy. A systems engineer strives to create functional feedback loops. Today, that means closing the gaps in our broken feedback loops. Consent of the governed, and so forth.
• j-c-hewitt 6y ago
  There are countless situations in which Congress tries to punt its responsibility to the other branches. If they want to be a responsibility-free elected TV pundit class that lives high on the taxpayer hog, then let's amend the constitution accordingly. Congress just tries to delegate responsibility to the other two branches so it can get back to fundraising, "investigating," and grandstanding.
• llamataboot 6y ago
  But isn't this literally Justice throwing the ball back to Legislature? "We understand why you may want this to be true, but if that's the case, you need to do it specifically"