26 ms·
> > Because the states are not the owners of that land. Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules. > I expect it is more complicated than
by JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> > Because the states are not the owners of that land. Those are other countries, and they get to set their own rules.
> I expect it is more complicated than that, and less adversarial.
It is neither.
You think there was a low amount of adversary in clawing water back to prevent further deaths?
- rootusrootus 5y agoI was speaking in general. But yes, I think that it may be contentious occasionally, but mostly the states and the reservations try to cooperate. If push comes to shove, the states will end up winning, and the tribes know it. The situation they have now is as good as it's going to get, and it could only get worse if they fight viciously over every jurisdictional question.
- hedora 5y agoThat's unclear. The federal courts are likely to side with the reservations.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoYou are guessing to manufacture a contrary position, and you are incorrect. Guessing to argue is dishonest If you are in any way interested, stop arguing and go look it up