VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Keeping it class apparently.
U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
El Jason
Well-known member
Some of the most faulty logic I’ve seen yet.
Greybeard
Well-known member
Not sure if this has been posted but this is an interesting opinion on the ruling.
https://www.themeateater.com/conser...eme-court-issues-opinion-on-herrera-v-wyoming
https://www.themeateater.com/conser...eme-court-issues-opinion-on-herrera-v-wyoming
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 357
I generally like the meateater content - but I think they are a little off base with this article and relied far too heavily on what WY officials had to say about the ruling. It would have behooved them to talk more with folks who ultimately prevailed in the case regarding future implications.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It was pretty similar to their take on the steelhead situation in ID where they only talked to the head of IDFG, and who doesn't see a real need to stop killing wild steelhead.
I haven’t been to Pine Ridge but I’ve been to the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. To the rural villages of Tahini and Green grass as well as the town of Eagle Butte. My boss at the time was with me on one of the trips and he had done a lot of survey work on Pine Ridge. Said it was very similar.
I believe Ziebach county is the poorest county in the USA. Crow is not nice in anyway whatsoever. Lodge Grass is bad, but it is nothing compared to Eagle Butte.
Most Americans could not imagine what Tahini is like unless they saw it themselves they. It is hard to believe such a place exists in modern times in our country
It has probably been addressed already, but I found the following statement from the MeatEater group interesting.
"Interestingly, one provision for the abandonment of the treaty right was “so long as game may be found thereon.” Elk and several other species of big game were extirpated from the Bighorn around the turn of the 20th century and reestablished decades later by the state and federal government—a fact Wyoming may point to in future hearings. "
"Interestingly, one provision for the abandonment of the treaty right was “so long as game may be found thereon.” Elk and several other species of big game were extirpated from the Bighorn around the turn of the 20th century and reestablished decades later by the state and federal government—a fact Wyoming may point to in future hearings. "
El Jason
Well-known member
I personally feel that will be a very weak argument.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This 5 judge majority wants this treaty to survive. Almost zero chance they will support any technical reading that could go either way. For example, they could easily say that "game" is not just elk, but included birds and small game so the treaty survived the momentary lapse in elk presence. Or, the treaty covers millions of acres other than the Big Horns so big game weren't absent from all of it therefore no "trigger". I am not saying arguments can't be made both ways, I am saying that if this court wanted this treaty to expire it would have ruled differently this year. At this point WY shouldn't be looking for "any plausible argument" but rather it needs to find an argument that is so one-sided and indisputable that one of the 5 judges switches position - a tall task.
Thank you for being so level headed throughout the thread and taking the time to explain these things to guys like me that have so little experience with it!
antlerradar
Well-known member
It is likely that by the time the case reached the supreme court again one or more of the five judge majority will no longer be on the court. WY may be holding out hope the that a new judge will be more aligned with the minority. A risky strategy in my opinion but there is also risk for the tribe and this may allow a state willing to negotiate a chance at a better deal.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Hope is rarely a great strategy, but last time I saw RGB in person (in a crowd, never have met her directly) she didn't look very spry.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I agree. No one can predict with certainty what the court will do five or six years down the road. If Scalia had not had a heart attack this thread might be totally different. This could give a state some power in negotiations. Can you hear me Montana.
Oh dang. I double quoted you because I had to look up how to spell Scalia. Bad spelling is a no win situation.
A lot has been said about how poor these reservations are but don’t they have the same opportunities to leave the reservation like the rest of US citizens? Is there some law saying they have to live there? I don’t get it? They r free to seek better employment, education etc correct just like the rest of us? The whole idea of these reservations may have been relevant at some point. But today we r one nation and all citizens. There shouldn’t be a nation within a nation. I’m not sure what to do with the reservation but the idea that they can live there forever from one generation to the next is absurd. We all move away from our homes as kids to seek better opportunities
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Methinks "charmingly" is not the proper modifying descriptor.
Kearnsie14
Active member
This is exactly right. Issue preclusion was there for the taking if the court was looking for technicalities to allow them to side with WY and they rejected it. If Alito couldn't win the other five justices over on the issue preclusion argument, they definitely wanted this treaty to survive.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Only about 1 in 5 native Americans live on reservations or other "trust" lands, so the vast majority have made the choice you suggest. That 20% minority has likely chosen to stay for the same reasons many people of many races stay in small dying towns/communities - culture, family, "staying with the known", hopelessness, etc.
Gotta say, I am disappointed in the lack of empathy displayed too many times in this thread - including one not-so-veiled threat of vigilante justice. The reservations I have seen are a sad mess, but so are some portions of our major metropolitan areas and some of our struggling rural areas - our propensity to blame minorities for their lot and at the same time largely ignore the equally struggling poor white families does a disservice to both groups. One group is blamed, the other ignored. Helping all find their "boot straps" with less judgmentalism would be a nice step towards MAGA in my opinion.
Very true. There are a lot of struggling areas,groups etc. I certainly do feel sorry for all of them. But it’s everyones responsibility to better themselves if they so choose. The opportunities are there for everyone in this country to do. It’s a choice. I know certain ppl have more obstacles to overcome than others no doubt. I’m just sayin that this idea of a nation with a nation isn’t self sustaining. But also at the end of the day everyone is responsible for themselves. This country has too many opportunities to not better ourselves. But I’m certainly not judging them. It’s a very unique situation with these reservations it seems. But it most certainly doesn’t seem to be a good situation. I didn’t realize until reading thru this thread that these treaties were still in place etc. but I’m from the south so it’s not present here.
I'm a drywaller. We have horrible reputations, and frankly deserve every bit of it
Like I said days ago. ONLY a lawyer can look the difference between treaty Wyoming territory, and 2019 National Forest, and pretend them the same.
Only a lawyer can pretend the CROW didn't sign this knowing full well they did so to save extinction. Kniwing full well that that the land was on its way to being occupied.
The ONLY REASON it was not homesteads. Not ranches, is because the federal government created Forest Land. This was NOT created by Wyoming.
This is just another example of the Federal Government overreach. It locked up millions of acres that were on the way to being occupied or were occupied, then 100 years later says "look, no one is there".
I keep hearing the lawyers saying "you can't consider context". Of course you can, and should. The state of Wyoming didn't create this issue, the Federal Government did. The CROW should be able to hunt every animal the federal government has jurisdiction over.
This is why non lawyers listen to Mike Lee and despite knowing he us a weasel, agree with his claim of federal overreach.
The crow signed a treaty with the word OCCUPIED. It does not say ANY LAND.
Occupied was put there for a reason. Only lawyers can pretend otherwise. Only lawyers want to group dozens of sovereign nations who signed separate treaties with distinct wording as the same.
This is 100% the Federal government dictating to a state, Wildlife policy which the Federal government has no say in.
For non lawyers, this is another example of federal overreach and judicial tyranny.
Like I said days ago. ONLY a lawyer can look the difference between treaty Wyoming territory, and 2019 National Forest, and pretend them the same.
Only a lawyer can pretend the CROW didn't sign this knowing full well they did so to save extinction. Kniwing full well that that the land was on its way to being occupied.
The ONLY REASON it was not homesteads. Not ranches, is because the federal government created Forest Land. This was NOT created by Wyoming.
This is just another example of the Federal Government overreach. It locked up millions of acres that were on the way to being occupied or were occupied, then 100 years later says "look, no one is there".
I keep hearing the lawyers saying "you can't consider context". Of course you can, and should. The state of Wyoming didn't create this issue, the Federal Government did. The CROW should be able to hunt every animal the federal government has jurisdiction over.
This is why non lawyers listen to Mike Lee and despite knowing he us a weasel, agree with his claim of federal overreach.
The crow signed a treaty with the word OCCUPIED. It does not say ANY LAND.
Occupied was put there for a reason. Only lawyers can pretend otherwise. Only lawyers want to group dozens of sovereign nations who signed separate treaties with distinct wording as the same.
This is 100% the Federal government dictating to a state, Wildlife policy which the Federal government has no say in.
For non lawyers, this is another example of federal overreach and judicial tyranny.
