4 ms·

The point that Gorsuch made in his majority opinion was that it's not the Supreme Court's role to figure this out — that's Congress' job. The SC only interpret

The point that Gorsuch made in his majority opinion was that it's not the Supreme Court's role to figure this out — that's Congress' job. The SC only interprets the law, which in this case referred to a treaty that never repealed by Congress, so the SC ruled that it must be honored. Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand, and the court sent a strong signal that it needs to be resolved by Congress.

pdonis 6y ago
> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand I'm not so sure. The only real effect of this decision is that everybody now has to recognize that a certain class of criminal cases (those in which all parties are members of the Creek nation) in eastern Oklahoma can only be tried in Federal courts (or, for some, Creek tribal courts), not Oklahoma state courts. Nothing else has to change. The Creek nation is already coexisting with non-Creek inhabitants of the same territory and none of that has to change; the city of Tulsa doesn't have to move, people don't have to leave their homes, businesses don't have to relocate. I don't see what makes the state of affairs after this decision particularly confusing or unstable.
- atombender 6y ago
  The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. He wrote the decision "will undermine numerous convictions obtained by the State, as well as the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes committed in the future ... [and] may destabilize the governance of vast swathes of Oklahoma."
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. I know. I don't find his claims compelling, for much the same reasons that the court majority doesn't, as discussed in some detail in the court's opinion.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
... which if past practices provide any indication means that the USA will abrogate yet another treaty.
tspike 6y ago
> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand It seems pretty clear to me. Both Oklahoma and the federal government willfully ignored established law and usurped jurisdiction that didn't belong to them. That it's inconvenient to the status quo doesn't mean it can't stand.

pdonis 6y ago

> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand I'm not so sure. The only real effect of this decision is that everybody now has to recognize that a certain class of criminal cases (those in which all parties are members of the Creek nation) in eastern Oklahoma can only be tried in Federal courts (or, for some, Creek tribal courts), not Oklahoma state courts. Nothing else has to change. The Creek nation is already coexisting with non-Creek inhabitants of the same territory and none of that has to change; the city of Tulsa doesn't have to move, people don't have to leave their homes, businesses don't have to relocate. I don't see what makes the state of affairs after this decision particularly confusing or unstable.

atombender 6y ago
The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. He wrote the decision "will undermine numerous convictions obtained by the State, as well as the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes committed in the future ... [and] may destabilize the governance of vast swathes of Oklahoma."
- pdonis 6y ago
  > The Chief Justice doesn't agree with you there. I know. I don't find his claims compelling, for much the same reasons that the court majority doesn't, as discussed in some detail in the court's opinion.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

... which if past practices provide any indication means that the USA will abrogate yet another treaty.

tspike 6y ago

> Clearly this results in confusion, and can't stand It seems pretty clear to me. Both Oklahoma and the federal government willfully ignored established law and usurped jurisdiction that didn't belong to them. That it's inconvenient to the status quo doesn't mean it can't stand.