Judge Gorsuch aligns with Ginsberg
Community
Oh my god conservatives are in freefall as newly appointed ultra conservative Judge Gorsuch goes over to the liberal dark side. Boy oh boy that didn’t take long . What were the democrats worried about in the nomination process. Geez.
Quote , “Not only did he provide the decisive fifth vote in the case, he wrote an important concurring opinion for himself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the court's liberal wing.”
Ok I am hyping it a bit for sensationalism.
He simply agreed that a 1855 indian treaty clause allowing free access to roads was still applicable. Tribal members couldn’t be taxed for transporting goods to and from the reservation.
this is what happens when one follows the law not political ideology. a law or treaty's age is irrelevant.
I wonder if this ruling is a bit of a harbinger of the ruling on the Herrera v. Wyoming case that the SCOTUS is now weighing, which centers around interpretations of a 1868 treaty between the US and the Crows. The gist of the case for those that are unfamiliar is that a member of the Crow Tribe was hunting elk on the Crow reservation in Montana, left the reservation, crossed into Wyoming, and shot three elk on National Forest Land. He was charged with poaching by Wyoming, but is arguing that the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie gives the Crows "the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon." Depending on how the SCOTUS rules on the validity of the treaty and the definition of "unoccupied," it could potentially allow certain Native American tribes hunting rights on wide swaths of federal land without the need for licenses.
BEG, if they rule in favor of the Crow in that case I'm going to play my Elizabeth Warren card.
I'm glad at least one justice doesn't feel duty-bound to vote party lines. Yeah I get a bad feeling about where all the Herrera case could go.
Ruling on the side of the law rather than the side of politics, wow. If only they all would do such a thing....
"But the heart of the case was the meaning of the 1855 treaty that guaranteed the Yakamas the right to travel on all public highways".
"Kavanaugh dissented from the Gorsuch and the liberals. He argued that the 1855 treaty merely gave tribal members equal rights to travel".
Two different interpretations of the same 165 year old treaty...so what is the actual truth?
Jeff, I would say that depends on if you are adhering strictly to the written treaty or to the spirit of the treaty's meaning. I'm quite positive the treaty was written as such to allow the Yakimas to travel without encumbrance, not that they could travel "for free", meaning without taxation.
Tax is an incumbrance. More specifically taxation is theft....
BEG, if they rule in favor of the Crow in that case I'm going to play my Elizabeth Warren card
Amen, Brotsky!
I guess that means she's alive.
We'll, I'm 1/64 Cherokee so that's even thicker blood than EW has.
Forest land is now occupied land. It was made so by Teddy.
Forest land is now occupied land. It was made so by Teddy.
Curious, do you have a reference to something stating this or were you just sharing an opinion? From what I've read about the case, there is no singular definition or criteria which deems a land "occupied."
BEG, I am curious how the court will rule in that case as well.
I haven’t read anything on the state claiming rights to the management of the animals. There is prior rulings on that already if I am not mistaken.
Expressing an opinion. Unoccupied is the condition of not being used. The land is now being used for the general good of the public citizenry. Before the declaration of public lands and creating National Forests, is was just land with no specific purpose.
From a military standpoint, the unoccupied land was an area not overrun by foreign troops. As long as the tribe remained on reservation lands, it was unoccupied by them. They were allowed to leave temporarily for subsistence purposes when the confines of the rez couldn't provide. What the gentleman of discussion did was a matter of convenience and not necessity. What becomes the issue and question is: are game animals managed and protected by state wildlife agencies or the federal gov't? If the former, the state of WY was just in their charge. It also brings up the question of advantaged favor based on ethnicity.
Remember, Congress is the only one who can strike a treaty with a foreign entity or "enemy", which the American Indian was in the late 1800's...
Is the American Indian still a foreign entity? If so, how can they be allowed the rights of an American citizen?
