Senate The Supreme Court

That's very much a major reason for it. He won't have a US Attorney General acting as his own personal attorney, either

 

Nixon might have been if Ford hadn't pardoned him.

And maybe not charged with anything, but Clinton was disbarred for a few years for lying during the lawsuit that led to the whole Monica Lewinsky mess.

 

Federal prosecutors should not be swayed merely by popular sentiment, if there are crimes to prosecute they should definitely do so.

 

"You have been browsing Presidential True Crime for quite a while now..."

 

One might almost say, a smorgasboard of crimes....

 

You're using the term "people" very loosely, @heels1785 . It's obvious some of those tweets are from bot accounts

Here's a great example, tho

 

EDIT: nevermind

 

I suppose I should make a few remarks about the Oklahoma decision. I am, after all, A. a Native American; B. A member of one of the Five Tribes directly effected by the ruling; C. An Oklahoma resident; and D. Currently living on the contested land itself.

So, I thought Gorsuch did a quite good job on the majority opinion. The case was brought, somewhat distastefully, by a man convicted in a state court of sexual assault of a minor. Not exactly the poster child Native Americans were waiting for, but I guess that's the point of the court system. He essentially claimed that as he is a member of the Creek tribe and the crime took place on Indian land that he could only be tried by a federal court and that the state's verdict was irrelevant and should be overturned. The liberal bloc, plus Gorsuch, decided that was correct and I think it was the right call. The verdict essentially rests on the fact that more or less the entire eastern half of Oklahoma was originally a reservation for the Five Tribes, a group of tribes relocated to Oklahoma from various places around the country and Congress never formally disestablished it as a reservation.

Roberts' dissent rests on the notion that by dividing the reservation land up into allotments given to specific Native families, granting all Natives on the reservation Oklahoma citizenship and the right to vote, and a couple of other things, that Congress all but said that they were disestablishing the reservation. Of course, the response is that, well, if they did all but say it, then they didn't say it and they needed to explicitly say it.

I think Roberts is right that Congress intended to disestablish the reservation. But, for whatever reason, they didn't completely do it. And I think that's inarguable. They didn't, so the majority decision is correct. The ruling as I understand it means that members of the Five Tribes that commit a serious crime in basically the eastern half of Oklahoma can only be tried in a Federal court. If this creates sufficient political will to do so, Congress can always revisit the issues surrounding this reservation now, so what's the big deal for a dissent. Congress whiffed on it; if they want to take it up again, at this late date, they are free to do so. The biggest concern is all of the past convictions that are basically overturned by this, should the convicted individuals decide to seek a federal trial. Gorsuch, I think rightly, points out that a lot of these people will probably just prefer to complete their State sentences, rather than basically start over in a Federal court where, if they are convicted, they could receive sentences that would end up just prolonging their time in prison. Some people won't have anything to lose; those incarcerated for life or those who have received the death penalty. But, as he says, the large size of a legal mistake cannot be used as a justification for prolonging it. Let justice be done though the heavens fall, in other words, which I'm on board with.

So, all things considered, a tip of the hat to the court and to Gorsuch in particular. I criticize them mercilessly when they get it wrong; so I suppose it's only fair to give them a nod when they get it right and today, in this case, they got it right. Though it's still somewhat discombobulating on a personal level. Today, I became something I've never been before: a Native American living on Reservation land. I've never lived on a reservation, never expected to. Now I am. Doesn't exactly feel different.

But let me just close with this: Gorsuch gets a truly great mic-drop moment at one point. “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.” Hold the government to its word? Word given to Native Americans? Now that's ******* revolutionary.

 

In my mind, Gorsuch's opinion is a longform version of resting his index finger on a particular section of the treaty and saying, "it says here..."

I'm now 25 minutes away from a reservation, which is only a bit more than I was back in Arizona.

 

No one could have summed this up better than you have Stephen. Absolutely agree. Doesn't matter what the US government wanted, they didn't do it.

 

I do wonder how much Oklahoma will listen to the Supreme Court case today as it puts much of the state as native land. It’s great that the court ruled this way but I do wonder how well it will be enforced

 

IIRC, Alito grumped something to the effect of "Well, it will come to a great shock for a number of people that they apparently are living on Indian land".

The ****ing beautiful irony of that statement aside, I have to wonder what the implications are in that:
a) Does this mean there will be some official designation now for the land? I don't think we have a precedent for a large non-Native American population being within a reservation before, mainly because the reservations were always land that non-Native Americans didn't want to live on. Apart from criminal case jurisdiction, the other significant factor is being exempt from any type of state jurisdiction, including state taxes (which I see that Oklahoma has). I assume that one must actually be Native American to qualify - simply living on reservation land doesn't allow you to live under its rules. But I do notice this statement from the BIA website:
"These states... may not regulate matters such as environmental control, land use, gambling, and licenses on federal Indian reservations."
b) With the United States' penchant for casually disregarding treaties with Native Americans, I would almost have to assume there are other cases of reservation lands that were never formally ended. Is that correct, and if so, are we going to see the re-establishment of these as well?

Edit: I wonder how this will affect the ongoing dispute in South Dakota: specifically, that a 1980 Supreme Court decision indicated that the Black Hills were illegally taken from the Sioux; the Sioux refused financial compensation, instead insisting on having the land returned. What happens now? And yes, the timing couldn't be better, considering the Native American protests at Trump's white nationalist jamboree at Mount Rushmore a week ago...

Edit 2: I was unaware that Tacoma, Washington is technically on reservation land.

 

With Gorsuch on the bench I can see more cases being passed. He has had a history of siding with Native tribes.

But I do wonder how much of a fit the state is going to throw over this.

 

i mean the state was literally "Indian Territory" in the past as set up by the federal government and courts, and that is......no longer the case. I think it will go better than the Fort Laramie Treaty, but I dont have much hope. democrats refuse to take any stand on behalf of natives, like they dont even pretend it is in their platform.

No one with power is gonna advocate for the tribes

 

No one ever has. When they have they have been ignored.

 

well or go back on it in a big way like Grant. Probably the only president to make protecting Native rights a part of his platform, only to be responsible for taking the Black Hills in his second term

Oh and the British actually, but we kinda killed everyone involved by the end of the war of 1812.

 

I am sure if Britain had won the war of 1812 more divisively they would have later betrayed the natives. It’s not like Canada has a better relationship with the natives than the US did or does. Some even say at least in a modern context it’s worse in Canada. So I am sure Britain would have screwed it up

 

They probably would have, but I wonder if the 1763 proclamation undercuts that.

 

The proclamation was made because they didn't want to deal with uprisings.

 

I am sure if the Revolution had happened either British Americans or the British themselves would have made the proclamation void.

 

reality and what may have happened are different things. We can only speak to what actually happened, and at risk of getting into war on another continent while Napoleon is rising to immense power, Britain chose to continue arming their Native allies. They also lost troops protecting Natives retreating into Canada from New York and Washington's genocide.

Also Canada has a bad relationship with First Nations peoples, but they are not as resoundingly bad as the US. Canada and the US both continued sterilizing natives well into the 20th century.

Regardless, you said no one in power ever has advocated for the tribes without being ignored. Speculation and probably alternate histories do not actually change the fact that agreements had been honored. Yes for cynical reasons, but just about any treaty is cynical on some level. The point is the British did use their power to advocate for Natives due to their mutually beneficial alliance. Sure when it was no longer beneficial they likely would have broken it one way or another.....but we live in the reality we live in. more importantly, they DID advocate for their allies and did not allow themselves to be easily silenced.

Yeah they wanted something out of it, but there was more of an understanding and true agreement between the two than there would ever be between Natives and the US. The US risked war again and again to take land, so by contrast those beneficial agreements are better than anything else the natives got. Cynical or not, likely to last more than the 50 years it had or not, supplying and aligning with natives is being an advocate for them. Reasons for doing so aside, two nations make an alliance they might break, doesn't change the fact that that alliance that lasted quite some time was a concrete union. "maybe" and "probably' dont change that material fact, cynical as the motive was

Here is someone's college thesis on the alliance and how the end of the War of 1812 ended it. Really good read.
https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=history_theses

It fell apart, but the alliance did happen and advocacy did occur from the 1760s till that point one way or another. yeah they wouldve betrayed them anyways of course, but that downplays the fact that this did happen. it shows Europeans could make legitimate alliances with Natives and even honor their deal or treat them as a client state. That is still imperialistic, but the shades present are important not to erase or obfuscate.

cynical agreements that you uphold are still agreements upheld more or less. That's more than can be said for the US government when it comes to natives. The Entente Cordiale was done to stop the saber rattling between the UK and France, it is self serving for all involved, otherwise you dont sign it