U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-supreme-court-deems-half-of-oklahoma-a-native-american-reservation-idUSKBN24A2BE <comment><USER2> 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/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

"The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe's authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. 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.

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is _Reversed_."

<comment><USER3> > 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."

<comment><USER4> 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.

<comment><USER5> 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.

<comment><USER6> Otherwise you could wake up and discover that a structure you built 30 years ago on land you thought was yours now isn't. The adverse possession law exists to prevent surprises like that.

<comment><USER7> I can understand this perspective, but that also means someone else's rights have been trampled over, even if long ago. What's needed is something that prevents this from even happening in the first place.

<comment><USER8> Not everything in life is perfect. The law isn't either, but it's reasonable to attempt to deal with imperfect situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just a couple notes here from a person of tribal descent (I am Wasq'u, a tribe in the PNW), for those trying to make sense of it.

This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality—but that technicality has potentially enormous implications.

The Court has _only_ decided that the federal [EDIT: state! sorry!] government has no prosecutorial jurisdiction against citizens of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" in about half of OK—this is what the press means when it calls this territory "Indian reservations." They did _not_ decide things like: Do the tribes get the taxes from people living in Tulsa? Do non-natives have to abide by rules of the respective nations? Does the tribal government have the ability to reclaim land through land-for-trust? And so on.

Further narrowing the ruling, my understanding is that this only applies when all persons involved in the crime ( _e.g._ , the victim) are also tribal citizens.

But, this ruling does open the door to a lot of those types of questions. It is possible we see several cases related to the sovereignty of these nations over the next few years, possibly greatly expanding the scope of the jurisdiction of the tribal governments.

<comment><USER10> > _This ruling, as I understand it, resolves a narrow technicality_

That is literally all of the SCOTUS rulings. It's petty listening to bright minds discuss minute details. The fact that technicalities have far reaching effects is a sign that the system is broken.

<comment><USER11> I almost think they "like" to word things in this way so they can side step the larger ramifications of their decisions to certain people.

It feels frustrating to those outside the law. But that's always been true of the law, as far as I've read.

Also remember that our legal system is a direct inheritance of the English legal system we separated from in the 1700s. There's actually more history to our laws than to our country. So to some extent the years of buildup contributing to confusion stem back pretty far into the past. We would have a lot of work ahead of us to reinvent the quirkiness out of the system.

<comment><USER12> It helps if you realize that the English legal system developed as an alternative to trial by combat: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat). The point isn't to empower judges to make decisions that have the best "ramifications" "to certain people." It's to reach a decision that _people who violently disagree_ about those "ramifications" are nonetheless forced to accept the result because it was reached in accordance with agreed-upon rules.

That's why so many decisions come down to careful parsing of words and "technicalities." A case that reaches the Supreme Court will usually have generated intense controversy about what is _the more desirable result._ Thus, the focus is on reaching a decision that _people can 't argue with_ because of scrupulous adherence to rules and doctrines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think it mattered.

It's insulting to hear people talk about them as not having "initiative" or being somehow responsible for being poor. When they resisted being screwed, we sent in the US Army to kill them, then kept them under control.

Reconciling this after all these years is going to be tough, but acknowledging it is a first step. Giving them back the land is disruptive, but giving them a few billion dollars is pretty easy. It would be interesting to see a VC fund focused on Native Americans building businesses. Or some real educational funding in Oklahoma. It would be a lot better than what the Republicans are doing to the state. All they want to is protect the rich and the oil industry.

<comment><USER14> I find your use of "we" interesting because you clearly identify as part of the group that committed those acts hundreds of years ago. How long should a child be responsible for the crimes of their fathers? As an example, assume your father killed someone and stole $1000 dollars from them. You never knew about this didn't choose for him to do this but now someone is coming after you saying you must pay them $1000. You find out it's all true, your father did murder and steal $1000 and you indirectly and unknowingly benefited from that. Should you legally be forced to pay back that $1000 dollars? But the person is dead, should you have to pay that dead person's son $1000? Should you and any siblings have to divide that sum up and pay back the $1000 collectively? Let's say you have already spent every dime you have on meals out. Should you go to jail because you can't pay back the $1000 your father stole? I think these agreements which weren't honored are equal to theft but how long down the line must you pay for the crime of being born in that situation and pay others that were born into the opposite side of the theft. Even with as close a relation as a father, I find it hard to believe that a child should be responsible for their parents wrong doing. But now assume that not only were you not related to that person who stole $1000, you simply don't have the heritage that the murdered man has. Now assume that hundreds of years have passed and now someone is still asking to collect that $1000 from you. I find it very difficult to find the moral obligation to pay back that money when the people who were the actual victims are long dead, the people who committed the theft are long dead, and there is no connection between your actions and the theft. Voluntary payments I would be all for but using tax money which is essentially taken by force, as if you don't pay taxes you will go to jail, that kind of thing seems very wrong. I would not blame a child for their father's sins.

<comment><USER15> This analogy falls apart rather quickly when you recognize that the north american indigenous population still suffers greatly under legal systems built on the treaties that weren't even honored while the descendants of those who perpetrated great crimes against them collectively constitute the greatest mass of wealth in the history of the world while also pretending to have done nothing wrong.

Re-do your analogy but now it's that your dad killed someone and stole the deed to his land, found oil on it, and is now one of the richest people in the world and the person he killed's kid is now on the street begging for cash and tell me again how little you owe that kid who's father's land gave you your trust fund and your college education.

<comment><USER16> _tell me again how little you owe that kid_

That's actually not that hard to do, both from a legal and a moral standpoint. Legally, the "you" in your analogy has never committed an unlawful act and is therefore not personally beholden to any restitution to the victim's side. It is the purveyance of a well-functioning justice system to provide adequate restitution for victims of crimes, but that does not extend to a personal obligation on people that had no part in said crime.

Morally, the story is a bit more convoluted but your premise falls back to the theory of original sin: that people can be personally held responsible for their heritage. In the past two-thousand years it has been proven a very powerful argument because it "feels" right, but at its core it is still a rejection of the individualist premise that all people are born equal. And I'm still on the side that believes all people should be born equal, even though that stance seems less and less prevalent nowadays. Once you start arguing for collective punishment of past crimes, it's very hard to argue your case without at the same time defending the same practice throughout many wars in history, and now explicitly outlawed in the Geneva Conventions.

<comment><USER15> Original sin is the idea that a dude ate an apple some number of thousands of years ago and an all powerful (and allegedly all knowing) being got grumpy at him for it for some reason and now we all suffer for his intransigence.

In fact, the concept of original sin requires that we exist in a state of punishment for that sin permanently, not that we continue to benefit from it by, again, existing in the wealthiest civilization that has ever existed on this planet.

This is again a poor analogy, framing us as victims of an aggressor who wants something from us that we cannot give.

As for the geneva conventions, please note that colonial relations to indigenous people violated just about every single one of the geneva conventions. Forced resettlement, biological warfare, collective punishment, the destruction of non-military targets -- it is not "collective punishment" to expect there to be at least a moderate reparation for crimes committed. What is even the point of the concept of "war crimes" if you can get away with them just because "oh it's been too long".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From the actual opinion: "Oklahoma replies that its situation is different because the affected population here is large and many of its residents will be surprised to find out they have been living in Indian country this whole time. But we imagine some members of the 1832 Creek Tribe would be just as surprised to find them there."

Damn, nice shade, Gorsuch!

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

<comment><USER18> The entire city of Tulsa is there - literally millions of non-native Americans live in this area.

Congress will have no choice but to make a law breaking the promise and repatriating the land out of Native American hands.

<comment><USER19> What are the consequences to people in Tulsa who aren't tribe members? Landowners who aren't tribe members? Can the tribe expel them and confiscate the land?

<comment><USER20> Nothing. The tribe members lost that land with the Dawes Act before Oklahoma was a state.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally > considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land > at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma's second-largest > city.

McGirt v Oklahoma (9 July 2020) pdf:

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf)

<comment><USER21> Very interesting. Is this the first time a major city has fallen within a reservation?

<comment><USER22> And, either way, what are the implications to non-tribe citizens and non-tribe governments?

<comment><USER23> And how do you even define a tribe citizen? Is there like an ID card? Is it a DNA test? Does Elizabeth Warren qualify?

<comment><USER24> The tribes have their own mechanisms for identifying citizens like any other jus sanguinis nationality. The specifics depend on the tribe in question.

<comment><USER25> How does this work with government? Or let's go into one specific question, can I start my own tribe?

<comment><USER26> The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a process for being recognized as a tribe[0], and the criteria is at 25 CFR § 83.11 [1].

0: [https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa](https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa)

1: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/83.11)

<comment><USER27> Look up the saga of the Little Shell Tribe for a modern look at recognition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Being part Sami I think it's fascinating to read about the system of reservations in the USA. I'm not sure about minority rule, but I'm clearly in favour of saving the unique cultures and ethnicities from dying out.

After many years of persecution in Northeren Europe—including forced assimilation often called "Norwegianization" or "Swedification," and near extinction in Russia—we've finally gotten some recognition as a nation of our own, at least in the Nordics. We have our own parliament (Sámediggi) and flag, for instance, and enjoy semi-autonomous leadership in "our" historical regions (called Sápmi) in close cooperation with the governments of Finland, Norway and Sweden. As such it acts more like a subset of the respective governments of the Nordics.

Now, both the finnic and germanic populations are also indigenous to the Nordics together with the finno-ugric Samis, so in that sense it's a bit different from the native population of the USA, where the other nations are almost all of immigrant descent. On the other hand, just like the Native Americans, Samis are in the clear minority in Northeren Europe, with only about 100.000 members, some of whom can't even speak their own language due to the assimilation policies (like me, although I do know a few words). Thus our culture and unique way of life is indeed in danger of extinction. For that reason alone I think it's important to at least recognize the ethnicity, and perhaps save it from the "tooth of time" as it were. Perhaps especially since most Samis today enjoy a modern lifestyle, and only very few live the traditional nomadic lifestyle of reindeer herding. If I'm not mistaken, the same is true for the Native Americans. In any case I'm happy we can finally enjoy peace and democracy with one another.

All the best, from Norway! <3

<comment><USER29> Reservations were not created out of generosity, quite the opposite.

<comment><USER28> I'm sorry if it seemed like I made that assumption. I certainly didn't mean to. There were attempts at similar things in the Nordics, and certainly Russia displaced many local tribes in its hunt to stamp out any ethnical uniqueness through-out Russia, under Communism, for the gain of assimilation. We see similar tendencies today in China, although there seems to be a sort of uneasy acceptance of the minorities there. Well, if you disregard the not-so secret re-education camps... Anyway, a great movie about the difficult adaptation to Scandinavian modernity among Samis, and the prejudice towards them, is the Swedish movie _Sami Blood._ Highly recommended!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > The ruling voided McGirt's sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could > face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.

Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.

<comment><USER31> It is perverse, but there is a method to the madness. Some sentencing mitigations or parole decisions are based upon length of sentence. Someone who is given a 20 year sentence may be eligible for parole when, for example, 1/4 of the sentence has been served. By setting the sentence to a ridiculous length it is effectively denying any possibility for parole without directly stating that the sentence is to served without any chance for parole.

<comment><USER32> They already do this in LA. Get sentenced to 120 days in jail but due to overcrowding you'd do 5-10 days in jail.

Soon local politicians will require you only to do 1% of jail time so you'll be sentenced to a 100 years in jail for a misdemeanor. This already exists in the California bail system where you pay 1% of astronomically high bails (eg $60,000 bail for 1st time misdemeanor, like if they change a court date and fail to inform you).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I had the pleasure of driving through and visiting Oklahoma a decade or so ago. Some people don't like the rural states, but it felt so serene out there. We stopped at a shaved ice place off of some random exit and just sat there on the hood staring out at the plains. There's not much out there but it felt so peaceful. It felt like home.

<comment><USER34> I had a different feeling. It wasn't empty in the sense that the desert is, which is very pleasant and beautiful, but scarred with industrialized agriculture, and silos stretching out into the infinite surrounding. The fact that there was absolutely nothing at all as far as the eye can see, no mountain or woods, just field upon industrial field with no farm house or town in sight, felt extremely isolating and uncomfortable. A feeling of having no bearings, no difference in any direction; no idea where to run.

The small towns felt disturbing. Tulsa felt disturbing. The lack of minorities out in public was painfully glaring. It was all so very patriotic and dystopian. The unsettling overbearing flatness on the featureless terrain dominated my perspective of the area. Not for me, and I couldn't leave soon enough.

<comment><USER35> > The lack of minorities out in public was painfully glaring.

What does this mean?

<comment><USER36> My own experience: having had a good portion of my childhood (after immigration) in a Rocky Mountain West state, I moved to Chicago for school. The first time I came back to visit for Christmas, I was _blown away_ by how white the area was, and that I had never noticed before! Suddenly all of the childhood struggles I had with people quietly judging me fell into place (little things: assuming promiscuity, passing me over for a leadership position for someone less qualified, etc). That Christmas, the only person of color I saw was the guy behind the grocery's store's sushi counter, who was - wait for it, Japanese. It left me deeply disturbed, excited to come back to Chicago and excited to leave that state permanently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Interesting implication that Tulsa is now inside of a reservation. Growing up I thought reservations were located on tiny parcels of land but in some western states that is not the case. In Arizona about 25% of the state is tribal land, with neighboring state New Mexico having about 10% of its land as reservations.

</comment><comment><USER38> The story is quite stunning. So a child molester convicted in 1997 and in prison for 20 years wants to get out of jail. So he seems to have hired some extra ordinary attorney who simply couldn't find any way to get him out. And one day he finally hits upon this idea of land supposed to be tribal land 100s of years ago! The brilliant idea, indeed. And now half of the state will suddenly become tribal land because of this one guy trying to get out and this one lawyer who dug this out.

</comment><comment><USER39> We need to end the reservation system. No good will come of this system in the long term. We can end it either by making the reservations explicitly new nations (either fully independent or with protectorate status, like Micronesia or Palau), or they need to be integrated fully into the United States.

In the long run, separate countries in one system does not really work (and yes, the states and feds are overlapping jurisdictions), but Indians have a much more special status under the law. Race based preferences never end well, even if they seem nice to begin with.

Why? Because it is scary that you can actually have governments make laws that Americans may become subject to when those governments have very few duties under American law to respect American rights. Of course, we do not expect other countries to follow American law, but reservations are not set up as other countries. Moreover, the law is strange in that a tribal member in a part of Oklahoma is now due special criminal treatment due to their ancestry, rather than be subject to the laws of Oklahoma.

That is not okay. Either a border needs to be set up, or the tribal governments need to be cast aside or at least become subject to the same kinds of restrictions the states are. Yes, this will require a constitutional amendment, but frankly, special treatment of Native Americans is a relic of a bygone era, much like slavery.

<comment><USER40> Who should decide to have a border or the other option that you are proposing? I guess if you want to be fair, you need to let the Native American nations to decide, and what if they decide to create multiple nations in the middle of the not-any-more-united States?

<comment><USER39> > I guess if you want to be fair, you need to let the Native American nations > to decide, and what if they decide to create multiple nations in the middle > of the not-any-more-united States?

The United States should decide... either as a constitutional amendment or as a popular vote. If the tribes have input, that should be taken into account. But it's not like Native Americans have any more right to exist than any other person born in the United States.

In general, states can enforce their borders, but it's safe to say that the Native Americans failed at that considerably, and those wars have concluded and the USA has firmly won. This is not a value judgement, or a statement of what should have happened. It is simply observation.

Ultimately, the tribal system is a compromise to make things work as they are now. But, in the long term, this is never going to work out. Like I said, there is nothing good to come of this. At some point, some generation will have to bite the bullet and allow separation or pressure integration. This system we've created which encourages pseudo separation and shies away from integration really can't work out in the long run. It will lead to factionalism, in-fighting and eventually war or genocide.

A better solution would be to put in place incentives for Indians to leave the reservations and integrate with American society, with the eventual goal to privatize native lands or to make them public like any other land. Again... the system we have now, to hold land into perpetuity will not work.

Ultimately, tribal belonging is currently tied to how 'pure' one's blood is. This is the last vestige of racial preference in this country. These sorts of things invariably lead to bad outcomes in the long run.

Is it sad that cultures die? Yeah, perhaps, but cultures have always died. Thus is the way of the world. As each one dies, more will be formed. Oh well, times change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > The ruling means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally > considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land > at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma's second-largest > city.

So does this effectively create two different rules of law over the same land...?

Like how does this work?

<comment><USER42> It probably will come down to further court cases, but likely, yeah half of Oklahoma will be subject to Oklahoma state law, and half will be subject to tribal law. That's no different than a state being neighbor to a different state with looser/different laws.

Probably they'll work out a compromise like: tribal government pays Oklahoma fees to have them run infrastructure as they have been, and the State forwards tax money to the tribal governments. That seems like the most logical short term solution, essentially status quo.

But the main change will be that tribal lands may now have more power to change local laws (such as ignoring laws against selling alcohol on sundays, etc).

<comment><USER43> It's actually a lot more complicated than that. Tribal law is mostly for intra tribal criminal cases, and does not have jurisdiction over people who aren't members of the tribe or when a crime is committed outside a reservation. So, going from having a relatively small portion of a state, where most people were probably part of a tribe to having have a state in that status makes thinks very complicated for law enforcement. It's not like the tribes just randomly took over half of Oklahoma and established a new state. For most people, Oklahoma will still have jurisdiction over them.

[https://medium.com/@WillandCoch/the-tribal-court-system- what...](https://medium.com/@WillandCoch/the-tribal-court-system-what- jurisdiction-does-it-have-39ef83616967)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> One thing I'm unclear about is this: "If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." The question in the case, as I understand it, was whether previous acts of Congress had in fact dissolved the reservation. Could Congress, if they wanted to, pass a resolution saying, "Actually, such-and- such bill from 100-some years ago dissolved the reservation." Or can they only say, "Starting today, the reservation is dissolved."

Is Congress empowered to clarify the meaning of its own past statements? Or once the text leaves Congress, only the courts can say what that text means, and if the courts disagree with Congress, then Congress can only remedy that going forward?

<comment><USER45> Congress writes the laws. Courts interpret them. Congress can't simply say "oh actually back then we meant this other thing," as that would be completely nullifying the power of the Courts. Yes, they can make an amendment that changes/clarifies the meaning of an existing law, and that might sound like the same thing, but doing that requires the formality of the process -- in particular, bringing it to a vote.

<comment><USER46> Aren't retroactive laws a thing?

<comment><USER47> Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

<comment><USER48> That only applies to criminal matters and only in terms of punishment. Congress could decriminalize drugs and make it retroactive for people who have yet to be convicted or charged.

<comment><USER49> Sorry for stupid question but I'd imagine this ruling means the State of Oklahoma (and therefore all counties and cities/towns in Oklahoma) never had the authority to bring criminal cases against _those_ Native Americans in tribal lands?

Would action of Congress mean any such criminal convictions stand? If yes, would that be a violation of the Constitution of the United States?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Does anyone know the status of private land, not belonging to tribe members, now considered within the reservation? Can it be confiscated by the tribe?

<comment><USER51> Here is Washington state, sometimes tribal land is leased to non-natives for 99 years. Will definitely be interesting to see what happens, but it is quite possible that "property tax" could be moved over into a land leasing fee.

<comment><USER52> This is how it works in Arizona as well. I think it's pretty standard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Sometimes Supreme Court justices will surprise you. Justice Gorsuch is from the American West, and has proven to be a strong and consistent advocate for Native American rights in the Supreme Court, just as Justice Scalia was for the Fourth Amendment.

<comment><USER54> This comment just demonstrates your political biases, that's all. I don't know why you would be surprised that Gorsuch or Scalia would be in favor of freedoms for the people.

<comment><USER55> None of the other conservatives on the court agreed with the decision, so it's reasonable to be surprised. Alito is probably the current judge closest to Scalia and he dissented, so it's reasonable to be surprised. Why would you assume political bias?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Are all the other treaties going to be reviewed? What percentage of the USA would become reservation land if all the treaties were honored? If it was >50% would we still call them reservations?

<comment><USER57> It seems that what they've ruled is not that the treaty must be honored, but that only the federal government gets to decide not to honor it. Absent a specific decision to that effect, the treaty is still in force which limits the state's authority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Here's a fun map to look at. [1] So, where do we draw the line?

[1]: [https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/file...](https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia_prod.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/assets/public/pdf/Indian_Land_Areas_Judicially_Established_1978_and_AI_Reservations.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER59> It's so weird how sentences so significant are often "protecting" the rights of terrible, terrible people:

 _> McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted [...] of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt [...] did not contest his guilt in the case_

I'd be interested in learning who was involved in McGirt's proceedings and why. Did they mean to actually get this guy free (which, to be fair, at his age could be a charitable act in itself), or did they just think it was as good a chance as any to get this old treaty back on the table? There is a book and a film in that story.

<comment><USER60> Everyone deserves a vigorous legal defense, even the most reprehensible. If the accused or convicted are exempt from the rule of law, so are those who are accused or convicted by mistake, corruption, or abuse of power. Competent and committed legal defense for everyone defends the rule of law as it's applied to all of us.

<comment><USER61> Yep, but it also doesn't change that this particular person might be let free. I think it's OK to feel a little ambivalent about this ruling.

<comment><USER62> I think it's not about his freedom, but one of the two courts that could charge him have the death penalty. His legal case is about avoiding that.

<comment><USER63> He was already convicted and sentenced to 1,000 years. So I don't think the death penalty was on the table.

<comment><USER64> What would the tribal law sentence be for the same crime?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> As an aside.. whats up with that file photo Reuters is using? Is that somebody naked in front of the supreme court wearing just a fanny pack?

<comment><USER66> Lol. That is what I initially thought as well, but it turns out it's a lady wearing a nude colored dress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Ok City is just down the road from Tulsa. Guess this means Liz Warren was born on a Native American reservation.

</comment><comment><USER68> The genesis of this case (it started with Murphy) is an amazing and wonderful story. [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/05bar.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/05bar.html) ... and for more depth, check this excellent podcast series: [https://crooked.com/podcast-series/this-land/](https://crooked.com/podcast- series/this-land/) Full disclosure -- I knew and worked with the attorney who discovered the original issue. She was also a geologist, so she checked on the mineral rights to see if she could develop a jurisdiction claim.

<comment><USER59> _> It started with Murphy_

What do you mean? Murphy is reported as a murder, whereas McGirt is a rape. Do you mean that McGirt's defense adopted the strategy Murphy introduced...?

<comment><USER68> Sorry if I wasn't clear, the initial jurisdiction (state vs federal) issue started with Murphy, a murder case. When the Murphy jurisdiction issue began to achieve significant legal traction, McGirt adopted the same strategy. The SCOTUS reviewed the Murphy case with only 8 Justices, didn't issue a decision (they probably voted 4:4 in conference), and used the McGirt case (with 9 Justices) to decide the jurisdiction issue. The links in my comment provide a lot more info, it's a remarkable narrative. If the initial Murphy attorney had not first been a geologist (and then a mineral rights litigator) the whole situation probably would never have surfaced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> "Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. 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." Courts need to apply the above to Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution, as well as the 10th and 2nd amendment.

<comment><USER54> I agree, it's far past time to remove California's unconstitutional gun laws.

<comment><USER70> Doesn't that only apply to the federal government?

<comment><USER54> The Constitution? No, it applies to states as well. The SC has also explicitly ruled that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I follow court news pretty closely and was genuinely curious about this decision. Here is a brief description of what I understand the decision to mean (I am not an expert by any means). Under the federal "Major Crimes Act" (MCA) members of various Native American tribes are _not_ subject to state prosecution for crimes committed in "Indian territory". This case was brought by McGirt, a member of the Creek Nation, who challenged his conviction based on the original treaty establishing the Creek reservation in eastern Oklahoma. The headline is a bit misleading: for purposes of the MCA, eastern OK is now considered a part of the Creek Nation. This means McGirt must be convicted with the reservation's justice system or in federal court. It also has the consequence (discussed extensively in Roberts' dissent) that many existing convictions could potentially be vacated. It will be interesting to see how the Creek nation works with Oklahoma to address these changes.

<comment><USER72> They guy has already served 20 years for a crime which he originally plead guilty for. He was convited for raping a four year old girl.

Why he is challenging it now and by contesting the court's authority rather than his own guilt? Does he expect to be found not guilty under the Cree Nation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored. Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553)

 _In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Congressional action. The Court rejected the Indians ' argument that Congress' action was a taking under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Edward D. White reasoned that matters involving Indian lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Congress therefore had the power to "abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty," including the two-million acre change. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment._

<comment><USER74> If Congress cannot, who can?

I think treaties _must_ be able to be reneged. And since Congress is signing the treaties, they should also have the power to renege.

Now there might be consequences for those actions (the counterparty might attack you, your allies may no longer trust you, etc) and those consequences are what keeps treaties stable.

The issue here is that the other party (Native Americans) has no power to enforce the treaty... But IMO, that is a public outrage issue and not a Constitutional issue.

<comment><USER73> Isn't a treaty signed and agreed upon both sides? Why should one side unilaterally change the agreed one ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> " McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted in 1997 in Wagoner County in eastern Oklahoma of rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt, who did not contest his guilt in the case before the justices, had appealed a 2019 ruling by a state appeals court in favor of Oklahoma."

</comment><comment><USER76> Many reservations were affected by the allotment of 'excess land', and by tribal members selling their allotments (by wile or by intimidation), which led to the 'checkerboarding' of ownership. In recent decades, multiple tribes have had programs to recover their lands by purchase.

"The Dawes Act of 1887 created the most Native American checkerboarding. The act was intended to bolster self-sufficiency and _systematically fracture native cultures_ , giving each individual between 40 acres (16 ha) and 160 acres (65 ha)." [0] [emphasis mine]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_\(land\)) [1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Act)

</comment><comment><USER77> Highly recommend "The Five Civilized Tribes" by Grant Foreman to better understand the period, as well as "A Traveler in Indian Territory" to add some color. The OHS or Oklahoma Historical Society has a wealth of information, too.

</comment><comment><USER78> European here: what does it mean economically, geographically and for the local ecosystem?

<comment><USER79> It means Congress is shortly going to renege on yet another treaty they made with a Native American tribe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> This just talks about the case with the rape, but there was also one with a murder that SCOTUS decided on the same day, and it was based on the same question of whether the reservation still exists:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGirt_v._Oklahoma)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_v._Murphy)

Can somebody explain why is it that in "Sharp v. Murphy" only Thomas and Alito dissented, while in "McGirt v. Oklahoma" Roberts and Kavanaugh dissented, too?

<comment><USER81> My guess is that it's because it was a _per curiam_ decision, meaning the majority felt that it didn't need a lot of elaboration. The reason for _that_ is probably that _given_ _McGirt v. Oklahoma_ , _Sharp v. Muphy_ was an obvious ruling.

In other words, Roberts and Kavanaugh disagreed with _McGirt_ , but once _McGirt_ was precedent, _Sharp_ followed immediately. Thomas is known for thinking precedent doesn't matter and should therefore be (mostly) ignored, so his dissent is not surprising to me, though I didn't read it. Likewise, I didn't read Alito's, so I don't know what his reasoning was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> I suspect that Congress will consider repealing the Major Crimes Act with respect portions of Oklahoma. Congress has already done so for other reservations in several states. See 18 U.S.C. § 1162.

</comment><comment><USER83> >"The decision means that for the first time much of eastern Oklahoma is legally considered reservation land. More than 1.8 million people live in the land at issue, including roughly 400,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma's second-largest city."

[...]

>"Unless changes are made, tribe members who live within the boundaries would now become exempt from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes, while certain Native Americans found guilty in state courts would be able to challenge their convictions on jurisdictional grounds."

</comment><comment><USER84> Was looking through the comments hoping I would find some discussion about how this would affect things like property rights and title insurance for affected land, but I didn't see anything. I realize what was at issue in this case was jurisdictional priority, but still, if the court is arguing half of Oklahoma is "tribal land", what does it mean for people who theoretically own parts of that land?

</comment><comment><USER85> By the way, has anyone else noticed that Gorsuch takes a much more conversational writing tone in his opinions? He uses contractions like "can't", "doesn't", "it's", etc.

I'm am not sure yet whether I like it or will get used to it. But it is noticeably more informal than the other justices.

</comment><comment><USER86> As a general note,

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_L...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_Lands_of_Federally_Recognized_Tribes_of_the_US%2C_June_2016.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER87> I realize this is a petty concern compared to the repeated and compounded violations of the rights of Native Americans, but I can't help wondering if the unsettled questions related to this ruling will make it impractical for Tesla to choose Tulsa as a factory site.

</comment><comment><USER88> > The ruling voided McGirt's sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could > face a new trial in federal court rather than state court.

Is this a joke?? Does the US "justice" system really mete out sentences of 1000 years in prison?

</comment><comment><USER89> Anyone interested in historical Indian law cases that didn't set good precedent might be interested in reading In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided, by Walter Echo-Hawk.

</comment><comment><USER90> I don't know how to feel about this. I would be nice if there was good warning.

Even worse is the "for purposes of the MCA" which means it may or not be state territory for other purposes.

We need to know who is in charge so they can be held accountable.

I've lived near plenty of reservations and they are very different places. Some have very good government services, and relations with non-tribal authorities. Others, not so much.

The idea of telling a tribal authority: "surprise you're responsible for criminal laws of half a state" puts a ton of pressure on tribal authorities, and even more pressure on tribal members to hold them accountable.

I'm not for or against this decision. I'm saying the small print and details matter a lot. And "small print" is an area where tribal relations often go bad.

I hope this works out. It has great potential- for bad and good!

</comment><comment><USER91> This is a good start. Next they should return Indiana and Hawaii.

<comment><USER58> Why not just dismantle the whole country?

<comment><USER91> Ok

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Uh, surely it doesn't mean the the people residing in the area in question can go on committing what would be a crime under Oklahoma law... right ?

<comment><USER93> I think it means that the borders of Oklahoma get more complex when you consider the treaties that the US has entered into.

It's worth noting that according to the constitution, treaties have equal weight to the constitution. Therefore this ruling seems to me a way of saying "hey, maybe we should draw the maps according to the highest law in the land".

It has a bonus effect of signalling that the native people are actually people for both punishment AND benefit. Traditionally the US is bad at acknowledging the benefit side for folks with pigment (and doubling down on the punishment side, but that's a different discussion).

<comment><USER92> That's all nice and well, but what does it mean for the 1.8 million non- native-american people in that area, can one of them now rob another and not be guilty of a crime ? Or does it mean every robbery/arson/murder there can only be investigated by the FBI and charged in a federal court ?

<comment><USER93> Well, fortunately from what I gather, this only applies to tribal members on reservation land. So some of those 1.8 million will have it apply, and the rest wont. I mean it's right there in the article and the ruling... but you know, racist FUD is a better source I guess.

<comment><USER92> What racist FUD ? If the jurisdiction is territorial then how would state LEOs be able to enforce state laws even against non-tribe members on that territory, and if its limited to offences committed by tribe members there are potential victims both native and non-native Americans that are being harmed here - those who thought of themselves and their properties as being under protection of Oklahama state law (and paid taxes for it) and suddenly find it voided in some or all circumstances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> How is this not bigger news? This is a crazy - in terms of impact, not logic - ruling. Probably the biggest ruling since Obamacare if not before.

</comment><comment><USER95> If the land encompasses the western border and parts of the northern and southern border of Oklahoma, is it even _in_ Oklahoma anymore?

</comment><comment><USER96> I thought the US bought OK as part of the Louisiana purchase. Does this mean France has to refund the price?

<comment><USER97> AFAICT, the ruling is based on the US' own agreement made after that purchase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> What are the implications of this for non-tribe-members who live and have business on the land in question?

<comment><USER99> Unresolved. All they've really judged is the jurisdiction of the state government over tribal members in this area of the state. It does not affect non-tribal members. And it may also only apply to tribal members who have committed crimes against other tribal members.

So the scope is very limited at this point, but it does open the door for more interesting discussions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Is everyone purposely overlooking the fact that a rape conviction got overturned? That's not good news

<comment><USER101> If you believe the means weren't good, and that ends shouldn't justify means, then you accept it as part of functioning due process, similar to Miranda rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> Now only if Hawaii had the same type of record of the unlawful overthrow and forced annexation ...

</comment><comment><USER103> Do Native Americans not pay any tax at all? Or are they still obligated to pay federal taxes.

</comment><comment><USER104> Seems like all they did was say the feds get to punish native americans rather than state officials. Where's the sovereignty?

Nearly all US presidents, including George Washington, led genocidal campaigns that burned down entire towns or otherwise committed crimes against humanity in the name of expanding the colonial lands of settlers.

</comment><comment><USER105> Half? Wasn't it all back in the day? Anyway, this is a step forward!

</comment><comment><USER106> The decision has no bearing on land ownership or governance, but will force Oklahoma to tie up its historical loose ends.

EDIT: I originally incorrectly wrote "All they did was interrupt the trial of an accused rapist." in addition to the above sentence.

<comment><USER107> He was a bit more than "accused". He was convicted.

And, they didn't interrupt the trial. He's been in prison for more than two decades for this crime.

<comment><USER108> > McGirt, 71, has served more than two decades in prison after being convicted > in 1997 in Wagoner County in eastern Oklahoma of rape, lewd molestation and > forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl. McGirt, who did not contest his guilt > in the case before the justices, had appealed a 2019 ruling by a state > appeals court in favor of Oklahoma.

The crime part seems largely insignificant to this ruling. It was mostly just a proxy for a larger question at hand of who should have handled his case.

It's unlikely this guy will suddenly go free given his admission of guilt.

<comment><USER107> I didn't read this article as saying that he had admitted guilt. I read it as saying that _for purposes of this case_ , he didn't contest his guilt. That is, the basis of this case is not a claim that he is innocent; it's a claim that the wrong court convicted him.

If I missed something, feel free to point it out...

<comment><USER108> That's a good point. You're right, he just wasn't challenging it, not that he claimed guilt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> > _Tribe members who live within the boundaries are now set to become exempt > from certain state obligations such as paying state taxes_

What about everyone else? Shouldn't they pay taxes to the tribe?

<comment><USER110> For what services?

<comment><USER111> Stealing their land?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> "Forceful sodomy of a 4-year old girl"

Yeah, if this is true, can we just hang this guy already?

<comment><USER113> Honestly I'm surprised he's still alive, pop culture has lead me to believe that men who commit sexual crimes on children don't survive long in prison. This is also one of the most heinous acts imaginable, what gives?

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> So crimes committed by Americans on reservation land are basically unchargeable now?

<comment><USER70> Not chargeable by the state. This isn't new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> So when are they going to get to all the other unlawful stuff the government does?

<comment><USER116> when someone - like you - starts working for it. You are going to start, right?

<comment><USER115> I would if I believed in the system. The system has become an oligarchy where the ruling class is not subject to rule of law. The system ignores blatant violation of law by making frivolous excuses. For example, how can we allow people to wait years for a trial when the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial?

<comment><USER116> The system is the people. It only exists because people say they can't be bothered. It's easier to convince yourself it won't work because the the alternative is trying, and that takes effort. But that indifference permits the system to continue, from the bottom up, allows it to grow cancerous and metastasize.

The world you allow to happen us the world you get. The blame falls on you this time. You get what you deserve if you let it.

<comment><USER115> It falls on the collective. I do my part - I vote, write my representatives, attend protests/counter-protests. The system will not change because it does not work the way it is supposed to work. Your statement saying that the system is the people is no longer true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> Trump had a weird, forced rally in Tulsa during COVID and now half of Okalahoma state is gone. I'm not that into conspiracies but is somewhat notable.

</comment><comment><USER118> "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, 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.

<comment><USER119> > 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.

<comment><USER2> While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision.

There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement.

When Congress reaches approximate agreement on an issue, particularly an emerging one, it can move _fast_. See the passage of the PATRIOT Act or the recent move to spend more than $1,000,000,000,000 on COVID-19 economic relief.

<comment><USER120> Except this is demonstrably untrue.

The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done.

Our Congress is completely ineffective.

[1]:Fixed.

<comment><USER121> How much activity do you expect from a party whose organizing principle is to shrink government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub?

<comment><USER122> Maybe shrink government?

You might not agree with the principle, but given they haven't done much shrinking you cannot call it their principle.

<comment><USER123> It is their principle, they just prefer to shrink the parts of government they disagree with ideologically. Which is why we have the biggest, most powerful and most expensive military in human history but our healthcare and education systems are a joke.

<comment><USER12> On education, we spend among the most per student in absolute terms on K-12 and right at the OECD average as a fraction of the economy: [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure- cmd-3...](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cmd-3.svg)

As a portion of the economy, just our public spending on healthcare is higher than the OECD average public spending: [https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/newsroom/4...](https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/newsroom/48294761hd2011fr.png)

<comment><USER124> This is a great example of the flaw of using averages in an unbalanced society. Some wealthy districts spend far above the OECD average, while many poor districts are grossly under-funded (and under-achieving).

<comment><USER12> On a state-by-state level, rich districts do not spend more than poor districts: [https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor- kids-...](https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get- fair-share/)

Obviously high-cost states spend more than low-cost states. But their education spending is consistent with the size of their economies. Mississippi has a GSP per capita of $35,000 and spends $8,700 per student. Italy, Spain, and New Zealand have similar GDP per capita and also spend a similar amount per student.

<comment><USER125> Thank you, the claim that our educational outcomes are poor due to underfunding is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Its really terrifying to see people confidently and passionately argue about politics while pulling their "facts" from an alternate universe.

<comment><USER126> I think it is in large part due bad spending priorities at schools. Several years ago I lived small rural community and the school district passed a heavy levee on homes to pay for a new football field and a far larger than needed grandstand/bleachers and field lighting. Turns out the high schools roof was needing replaced at the same time but they purposefully waited until they got the levy for the field through first to put forward the one to repair the school because they figured that they could get them both that way but could not get the field after replacing the roof.

The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?

<comment><USER125> > The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches > for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause > brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars > earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental > capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why > not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make > teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?

I used to feel this way too, but my understanding is that investing in sports programs tends to _bring in_ more money for universities, on net. I don't think it's accurate to consider it as trading off against academic investment.

At any rate, this is a bit tangential: American universities are the best in the world, so the conversation is more about high school and lower, where our educational outcomes lag by some metrics.

<comment><USER122> This is high school. They don't need to attract students, they need to educate the ones they have. Considering the risks football should not be in public schools at all. Sure at university it pays for itself but that is a different level with different conditions

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> Honestly after all the Native Americans went through, give them the whole state at least. People in the United States speak and reflect often about the atrocities of slavery. We need to equally reflect on and remember the atrocities against Native Americans.

<comment><USER128> What do you mean "them"? You do realize that there were many different tribes who had very drastically different interactions with the US, right?

<comment><USER129> I believe the answer would be

> Native Americans.

Whether that encompasses multiple tribes or not, doesn't change that.

<comment><USER130> Giving the Florida Seminoles territory in Oklahoma (or giving land to an Oklahoma tribe and calling that a ceding to Seminoles?) would be weird at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER131> This is a really strange ruling. It also means that all prior convictions must be overturned, as they happened on a reservation instead of the state of Oklahoma.

</comment><comment><USER132> Dumb question... but can I still move to Tulsa?

</comment><comment><USER133> Incredible. Do the right thing America!

Let the Native Americans go. Let them be free. Give them back their lands.

You have enslaved them for far too long. You genocided them. Killed their culture. Killed their language. Raped their women. Killed their men. Killed their children. And now, the Covid virus is about to kill off the remaining Navajo Tribe.

You must be a heartless monster, if you don't feel any sense of sorrow, for what is about to happen to the Navajos. They're all about to die from the virus. Their culture is about to disappear from this earth.

For all the hot air talk about foreign nations and their supposed cultural genocide, well, you have one right here in your own backyard. And you have the historical baggage that goes with it.

It's time to let them finally be free. They have suffered long enough, for the sake of America's Manifest Destiny project!

Americans need to depopulate the Oklahoma territories, and return that land back to the Native Americans. As wells as the Dakotas, and return that back to the Sioux Tribes.

Americans already took all the good lands on the east and west coasts, by the waters, and left the sh*t lands to the Native Americans. Do the right thing. Prove it!

<comment><USER70> Let's get rid of the Normans while we're at it, and return England to the Anglo-Saxons. Except they took it from the Romans, who took it from the Britons and Picts. The details might be off, but my point stands: land ownership is complicated; wars happened, and all the genocides and land disputes going unrecognized for political reasons are only recently considered issues that need restitution. I'm sure the Native Americans have their own history of wars (admittedly, likely on a smaller scale) that pushed tribes to live in different places (I wouldn't know, I'm a product of the California school system, and while we learned about the natives in the missions, we spent more time glorifying the missions with models than studying precolonial American history)

</comment></comment><comment><USER134> The numbers should really be 100% instead of 25% and 10%. Much has been stolen from them.

<comment><USER135> No thank you. As someone who lives in one of those states this is a worrying precedent.

 _Maybe_ if their laws didn't apply to me as a non citizen I would be ok with this. As it is, I can be arrested for stopping at the wrong gas station with a firearm in my car.

I have no choice but to pass through reservations on a regular basis. And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same.

<comment><USER136> > And I have no input in the government that makes their laws. Nor any hope of > ever being heard. Yet those laws apply to me just the same.

That is also the reality of 40 million immigrants in the US.

<comment> _-david-_ Surely immigrants chose to come to the US. People in Tulsa didn't chose to be in a Native reservation. They chose to be in Tulsa, Oklahoma, US.

<comment><USER136> I find this delightfully ironic.

Tulsa residents actually _chose_ to live in a land that happens to be a native American reservation. They may not have known prior to this day, but the Supreme Court was there to clarify it.

In fact, and given that the Supreme Court dismissed the state arguments about laws passed around the early 20th century, it is not that these territories are _now_ part of the reservation, they _always_ were.

Now, if you were to argue that there may be uncertainty and prejudice against current Tulsa residents, because of the change of the status quo, I would say that, again, this is the reality 40 million immigrants face in the US to this day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> > Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberals in the > majority.

The US supreme court is a special kind of circus.

For the life of me, I can't remember any of the names of the justices on the Canadian supreme court. Its extremely uneventful, and even if there have been controversies, they were so minor or rare that I can't remember them.

The US on the other hand... The partisanship is so blatant and just accepted.

And not only that, the controversy.

I am still astounded that Kavanugh was approved after he started ranting openly about clinton conspiracy theories, awkwardly asking people if they like beer, and lying about common terms like "devil's triangle".

<comment><USER138> The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not surprising that there are differences.

Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing justices is a rather existential question.

<comment><USER139> What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with our Constitution so it's just as existential.

<comment><USER140> > The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime > Minister

And that's the crucial difference: if a Supreme Court judge in Canada starts misbehaving I guess Prime Minister can dismiss them just as easily. In the US judges are appointed for life, so if the wrong person gets appointed that choice will haunt us for a few decades.

<comment><USER139> The Prime Minister cannot dismiss judges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER141> I see this boosting U.S. Treasury demand. The decision affirms that the U.S. keeps it's word.

</comment><comment><USER142> I wish the Supreme Court had this kind of attitude towards other questionable decisions and actions by our Congress, namely the passage of the 16th amendment.

</comment><comment><USER143> Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened?

How far back into the history should we go?

<comment><USER144> > Can someone explain why America has reservations?

Because we signed treaties with the tribes, which are now semi-sovereign entities as a result.

<comment><USER29> That's not 'why', that's 'how'.

I'm not American, so don't know the topic in details. I have found this online:

" _The main goals of Indian reservations were to bring Native Americans under U.S. government control, minimize conflict between Indians and settlers and encourage Native Americans to take on the ways of the white man._ " [1]

[1] [https://www.history.com/topics/native-american- history/india...](https://www.history.com/topics/native-american- history/indian-reservations)

<comment> rolha-capoeira Arguably, the treaties are not only "how" but also "why" us modern Americans, detached from the times in which those reservations were established, should uphold them, as they are lawful.

We could certainly look at why the treaties were signed, but the original comment basically asked why we, modernly, should care.

<comment><USER29> The treaties, as legal instruments, partly explain why reservations still exist, yes, but a treaty only survives if it isn't an impediment. I think it's key to understand why they were created in the first place because that also explains why they still exist: IMHO they still serve their purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER145> _Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. 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._

I disagree with this reasoning.

As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of the land to me. This principle is not only recognized in our courts, but the clarity that it provides around ownership is a major foundation of our economic system. The reason is that before ownership was clarified with this principle, our land was covered by a mess of overlapping and contradictory claims to ownership of the land. But with a clear owner, however established, that owner can now use their ownership as collateral.

For a book-length treatment of that thesis I point you at [https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism- Triumphs-E...](https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs- Everywhere/dp/0465016154).

But this decision opens up the legal status of half of Oklahoma for debate, while other tribes around the nation are going to be thinking about which further claims they can now press.

If we continue to open up the course of reversing long-done ills, will we start to ask whether West Virginia should not exist not as an interesting academic question, but as a current legal one? See [https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/01/west- virgin...](https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/01/west-virginia- weekend-is-the-state-itself-unconstitutional.html) for background on that.

<comment><USER146> You're thinking of laches: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_\(equity\))

"Laches refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity"

It doesn't apply because nobody is claiming tribal groups failed to protect their interests. They haven't just been blowing off and watching TV all this time.

<comment><USER145> I am not saying that this is a legal argument for how this case should have been resolved.

I'm saying that this is a legal argument against the specific reasoning within the decision. That reasoning being, _Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law._ And yet here is a well-established example where an unlawful act, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, does become enough to amend the law.

I picked you to respond to because of the several people pointing out in one way or another that squatters rights (which, incidentally, has its own doctrines separate from latches) does not actually apply as a way to resolve this case.

<comment><USER63> When you take over land by squatting, you aren't "amending the law". You are amending land records using the judicial system. So I don't think the comparison holds up.

And considering that these Indian tribes have been fighting for their land since the beginning, it also doesn't really meet the criteria of someone squatting unnoticed on some land.

If someone just started building on your land right now, and you filed a complaint and called the police and no one would come to help you remove them legally for a decade, they aren't going to eventually just get title to your land. Filing complaints and calling the police has disputed their claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER147> This is a terrible article, it just cites the facts of the decision, teases the implication (OMG _half_ of OK!) and explains nothing. Here's a review article about the same case from a while back which does a better job: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half- land-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land- oklahoma-could-be-returned-native-americans-it-should-be/)

The tl;dr is that, yes, indeed, half of Oklahoma is part of land reserved for the Creek in a 1833 treaty. And almost two centuries of subsequent jurisprudence and state development has (unsurprisingly) completely ignored that with effectively no legal basis. Neither Congress nor the state of Oklahoma has ever lifted a finger to try to make this right.

Basically, this is the Supreme Court saying that enough is enough, this can't go on, and telling the relevant governments to get their shit together and figure this out.

No, Injuns aren't coming for Tulsa.

<comment><USER148> Do you realize the word you used is pejorative? Please be kind and show some respect.

EDIT - a note about the sarcasm - it is NOT OK to use pejorative or racist terms sarcastically.

<comment><USER132> He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?

<comment><USER149> From long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never tell. It seems so sincere.

<comment><USER150> It's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker, which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Pushes VoIP to Fend off Cisco  - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2008/10/14/microsoft-pushes-voip-to-fend-off-cisco/

<comment><USER2> How is Microsoft "fending off" Cisco? Is Cisco making consumer OS's and an office suite?</comment>


The Normalization of Deviance - <AUTHOR> http://www.rapp.org/archives/2015/12/normalization-of-deviance/ <comment><USER2> I'm speaking from complete ignorance here, but why couldn't the airline industry standardize a bit more? It seems that a pilot has to have special high-intensity training on each individual aircraft model, whereas I can jump in pretty much any car from here to Hong Kong and be able to control the machine safely after a ~60 second glance at the dash and steering column. Yes, I understand that adding that extra third-dimension of travel (up and down, in addition to forward-back and left-right) adds complexity, but I have a hard time believing that a standardized control interface for aircraft of X-class engine size wouldn't increase safety.

<comment><USER3> First, airliners have complex systems that need to be understood in detail since you can't just pull over at the side of the road like in a car.

Second, newer families of airliners by Airbus and Boeing do have similar systems and often a type rating covers 2 or 3 models now.

Third, each operator has their own standards and practices. In fact, airline operator standards are considered to be more pertinent than general FAA or mfg. requirements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quote from the original accident report:

"Further, a review [...] revealed that the flight crewmembers had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly."

Sounds like an opportunity for automated robotic testing.

</comment><comment><USER5> This also shows up on the part of airplane passengers. How many people listen to the safety instructions, well, as is their lives depended on it?

<comment><USER6> Well, to qoute fight club, it is simply the illusion of safety at 30000 feet. In reality, and as this articld recounts, the pilots control the plane and an eggregious piloting error will not ve corrected regardless of whether I am aware that my seat cushion is bouyant, or that I should secure my own oxygenmask before helping others.

Also, I would suspect that given the element of fear and urgency in a crisis, this information no matter how valuable, will be ignored by everyobe except a mibority of overtly obedient passengers and the most measured individuals.

Tl;dr Malaysian Airlines didn't have a 100% mortality rate because no one payed attention to the onboarding safety demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> An additional factor is the low probability of negative consequences.</comment>


Late applications for summer 2010 have all been considered - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.posterous.com/late-applications-for-summer-2010-have-all-be

<comment><USER2> Thanks for accepting late applications and for lettings us know the cycle's over. Maybe next time :)</comment>


Did Earth Hour Fail? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/earth_hour_crashes_to_earth/

<comment><USER2> You can't save the earth with advocacy. People are only so generous. They will do what is easiest and cheapest.

The best way to save the environment is through market mechanisms. Make solar cheaper than coal, and you no longer need to advocate for alternative energy. It will just happen.

More often than not, barriers to change are through established parties that bend legislation in their favor. That's why we need more "libertarian environmentalism", and less of the anti-market pro-jackboot bullshit that plagues the environmental movement.</comment>


Glenn Beck: 'Liberals, You Were Right' About Iraq War - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/glenn-beck-iraq-war_n_5505424.html

<comment><USER2> As much as some people might despise this guy, one of the hardest things for anybody to do is to change their mind and admit they're wrong. So, whatever you think of Glenn Beck, give him credit for doing that.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's amazing how one's opinions change when a different president is in office.</comment>


Apple tries to trademark the word 'startup' - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/28/apple-trademark-startup <comment><USER2> It's a pretty narrow trademark and is obviously targeting some GeniusBar program like the ones they already run that teach you how to use various things on your mac. Probably called "Apple Startup", the application only refers to the usage of "Startup" in regards to a doing stuff inside a store.</comment>


AI Spirits - <AUTHOR> http://spirits.media.mit.edu <comment><USER3> I value art projects the same way I value scientific theories. A complicated theory explaining a simple idea is less valuable than an elegant theory explaining something complicated. If an art project is fundamentally simple, but its presentation leaves me with a lot of questions (and not in a good way), then likely I won't consider it particularly worth it to delve deeper into what the artist is trying to convey. I feel like this page could have been made a lot less opaque.

</comment><comment><USER4> More information: [https://www.fastcompany.com/90258225/ai-is-making- halloween-...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90258225/ai-is-making-halloween-so- much-spookier)

</comment><comment><USER5> Happy Halloween. I am still trying to find a github link on their site - <USER2> find where the code is, please post a link here.

I am an old-time AI practitioner but in the last 5 or 6 years most of my paid work has been in deep learning. While I am sceptical that deep learning will take us to General artificial intelligence, I bet it will be at least 5 or 10 years before the well starts to run dry on deep learning, and by then there will be other breakthroughs.</comment>


Guitar-maker Gibson Brands files for bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guitar-maker-gibson-brands-files-for-bankruptcy-2018-05-01-81035414 <comment> reason-mr As guitar player, I can tell you that there is at present a huge oversupply, particularly of electric guitars, relative to the number of guitar players there are around currently. Some of this is of course caused by people with oodles of spare cash taking up playing guitar, only to find that it is quite hard and time consuming and then dumping their catch-and-release nice guitars for much less than retail. Regardless, one only has to browse craiglist "musical intruments" to see many incredible guitars, lightly used amps and other equipment selling for far less than retail. The result - people who actually know what they are doing and have some spare money are scooping up bargains. Plus of course kids are sampling, etc, can't be bothered, and/or playing nicer acoustic guitars - as made by Martin, Collings, etc. Also - <USER2> other posters have pointed out - gibson diversified over its means. But it will come back, and then we will own all of the guitars :)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a pet theory but the guitar hero/rock band craze seemed to prop up the real guitar industry for a bit, suddenly kids everywhere knew who Slash is and got a $150 guitar for Christmas, when it declined around 2010 I think they lost some of that market.

<comment><USER4> Word on the street is that kids just don't want to play guitars anymore. Throw some samples into GarageBand, and have at it. One young lady describes herself as being considered "weird because I play a guitar". I am a long way from childhood, but the impression I get is that the age of the guitar-playing rock god might be taking a breather for a bit.

But in Gibson's case, it's debt-laden acquisitions. They might sell fewer Les Paul's than they used to, but probably enough to stay in business (Fender and Martin don't seem to be going anywhere). One additional point of data is the Nashville flood from around ten years ago. The mandolin business came back to life, but IIRC Gibson just gave up on making banjos after that. How the flood affected the rest of the business, I don't know.

<comment><USER5> "Word on the street is that kids just don't want to play guitars anymore."

This pretty much started during the early 80s when everyone and his cat would want to impress girls playing a keyboard or a sax, then glam rock happened, followed by grunge and guitar became appealing again. Time changed since then, as did the interest for guitars, but it's not going away anytime soon; let's hope Gibson manages to survive the period. Today I'd say there's more interest for drums than guitar or bass: in my band a while ago I was among the 4 people who could play drums and we had only one guitarist, way different from say the 70s. What surely changed since the early days of guitar factories is the quality of unknown brand guitars; today it still requires some good work to manufacture a good guitar, but it's definitely much much easier than it was decades ago, and the quality difference doesn't reflect anymore the price delta.

<comment><USER6> What are some good manufacturers that are less expensive? I haven't bought a guitar in about 15 years but I'm ready to buy a new one. No idea what the landscape looks like these days.

<comment> reason-mr Oh an please, if buying new, support a decent, local, guitar shop (not a chain!) and get a "setup" done on your new guitar. Your fingers will thank you and so will the local guitar shop + you will have somewhere to go back to when things stop working for you.

<comment><USER7> You don't need a setup if you buy a Taylor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is there a known reason why a guitar maker bought up a bunch of high end audio companies? I'd like to hear the story behind this.

<comment><USER4> In summary, the impression I get is that the current CEO wants to be a businessman who runs a company that happens to make guitars, in contrast to wanting to run a guitar company. With the former, you could a bunch of debt- driven acquisitions that might, or might not be, a good buy. But now you're not just the CEO of a guitar company, you're the CEO of a _conglomerate_. Big swingin' dick, you are.

In contrast to Martin, who has been making guitars, and the occasional mandolin or ukulele, for well over a hundred years. That's pretty much all they do, and as far as I can tell they're financially fit. Probably because Mr. Chris Martin is content running a guitar company.

That's just my arm chair analysis. I otherwise have no idea what the hell Gibson wants with, say, Teac.

<comment><USER9> Martin also sells mostly or entirely acoustic instruments, not electric. I would guess that acoustic guitar sales have remained more consistent than electric guitar sales over time.

Part (most?) of Gibson's problem is that the guitar just isn't as popular as it used to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's odd that they don't survive? It's basically a license to print money. Many factories make good guitars all over the world but Gibson is one of those that can charge a lot just for the brand. (At least as long as the guitars are actually good.)

<comment><USER5> That's the issue. If someone gets the name just to sell crap guitars built in China with no quality control then the brand is screwed forever.

<comment><USER10> As far as I know, Gibson guitars have been okay during the years. Opposed to say, Fender which had some bad years.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple relaxes restrictions for iPhone, iPad app developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-09-09-apple-apps_N.htm

<comment><USER2> I credit Android partially for this. Without Android's success, would Apple have had much of a business reason to relax their rules?

<comment><USER3> Let me see... what about an antitrust investigation?

\- <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20013263-37.html>

\- [http://www.intomobile.com/2010/08/10/eu-joins-ftc-apple- inve...](http://www.intomobile.com/2010/08/10/eu-joins-ftc-apple- investigation-over-flash/)

And Apple removed even the restriction it imposes to advertisement (again, FTC may be a good reason for this):

\- [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/ftc-said-to- prepare...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/ftc-said-to-prepare- antitrust-review-of-apple-in-market-for-mobile-ads.html)</comment></comment>


Erlang Quick Tips - <AUTHOR> http://erlangquicktips.heroku.com/

<comment><USER2> More than quick tips, Erlang needs to be better at migrating things like the recursive copy into someplace standard, like Ruby does:

<http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/classes/FileUtils.html#M004326>

</comment><comment><USER3> I assume this was posted in reference to this comment:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1259627></comment>