US Supreme Court OT 2019

Interesting opinion in an 'Indian Country" case. I've been watching this since last term when the court come to a 4-4 deadlock in Sharpe, as similar case. So, from now, most of eastern Oklahoma is 'Indian Country' (for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act).

Great opening and closing by Gorsuch:
On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, theCreek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for cedingā€œall their land, East of the Mississippi river,ā€ the U. S. government agreed by treaty that ā€œ[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.ā€ Treaty With the Creeks, Arts. I, XIV, Mar. 24,1832, 7 Stat. 366, 368 (1832 Treaty). Both parties settled on boundary lines for a new and ā€œpermanent home to the whole Creek nation,ā€ located in what is now Oklahoma. Treaty With the Creeks, preamble, Feb. 14, 1833, 7 Stat.418 (1833 Treaty). The government further promised thatā€œ[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.ā€ 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368.
Click to expand...
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 Tribeā€™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 But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation.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.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks. Great post.

Knuckle Dragger said:
Interesting opinion in an 'Indian Country" case. I've been watching this since last term when the court come to a 4-4 deadlock in Sharpe, as similar case. So, from now, most of eastern Oklahoma is 'Indian Country' (for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act).

Great opening and closing by Gorsuch:

"On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise."
Click to expand...

Boom. I fear too few are learning about this in school.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Saw that. It's highly relevant to many would-be gun owners in Massachusetts. I've already set up a now OT2020 page. We'll also close this thread and start a new one for OT2020.
Click to expand...

the second point in Rodriguez v. San Jose kind of sounds like a petition to have a case heard even if it could be mooted by removal of whatever caused the issue? (example- NYC removed the transport ban so the case was moot, this seems to be asking that cases like that still be heard?).
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Interesting opinion in an 'Indian Country" case. I've been watching this since last term when the court come to a 4-4 deadlock in Sharpe, as similar case. So, from now, most of eastern Oklahoma is 'Indian Country' (for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act).

Great opening and closing by Gorsuch:
Click to expand...
I'll just add that this was a 5-4 decision with Gorsuch joining the court's liberals.

Fun fact: the four liberal justices vote as a block much more often than do Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
 
This is interesting because of the implications not only for Oklahoma but for other reservation areas. Few thoughts:

1. Will the police be "defunded" because they have a smaller local jurisdiction?
2. Are the tribal police ready to cover where the city police previously did? Who will staff and equip them?
3. Are non-Indian people able to be prosecuted under the Tribal judicial system?
4. Will the remainder of the OK criminal justice system be something that is utilized by the Indian nations courthouses, jails & prisons, public defenders etc.

It is one of those decisions that seems fair on its surface but in practice will cause tremendous chaos. I hope that there is a transition that is peaceful and productive.
.
 
67ray said:
This is interesting because of the implications not only for Oklahoma but for other reservation areas. Few thoughts:

1. Will the police be "defunded" because they have a smaller local jurisdiction?
2. Are the tribal police ready to cover where the city police previously did? Who will staff and equip them?
3. Are non-Indian people able to be prosecuted under the Tribal judicial system?
4. Will the remainder of the OK criminal justice system be something that is utilized by the Indian nations courthouses, jails & prisons, public defenders etc.

It is one of those decisions that seems fair on its surface but in practice will cause tremendous chaos. I hope that there is a transition that is peaceful and productive.
.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's confusing at all. The Indian Nations are not park if OK, just like MA is not part of NH. If you do something that is not illegal in the Indian Nation, but is in OK, then you did it ouside of OK, real simple.
 
67ray said:
This is interesting because of the implications not only for Oklahoma but for other reservation areas. Few thoughts:

1. Will the police be "defunded" because they have a smaller local jurisdiction?
2. Are the tribal police ready to cover where the city police previously did? Who will staff and equip them?
3. Are non-Indian people able to be prosecuted under the Tribal judicial system?
4. Will the remainder of the OK criminal justice system be something that is utilized by the Indian nations courthouses, jails & prisons, public defenders etc.

It is one of those decisions that seems fair on its surface but in practice will cause tremendous chaos. I hope that there is a transition that is peaceful and productive.
.
Click to expand...
The immediate implications only apply to tribal members accused of certain offenses enumerated in the Major Crimes Act. I suspect that a large number of tribal members will have to be retried in the federal system.

the decision does NOT mean that tribal authority now govern eastern Oklahoma. Tribal police will not be setting up speed traps on the interstates. If you got to Tulsa and hold up a liquor store, you're going to be tried in state court. Not much is going to change in that respect.

Your fair vs. 'tremendous chaos' observation is one of the things that bugs me about this case. Thomas is usually the 'let the cards fall where they may, consequences be damned' justice. But here he sides with the 'well Congress must have intended to disestablish the reservation' dissent that's entirely driven by fear of the consequences. I've followed this term very closely and I'm more convinced than ever that 99% of the time the justices' votes are driven more by desired outcomes then by a consistent legal framework.

I totally get and appreciate that there are legitimate ways to get to opposing views. However, I do expect a justice to be consistent in their philosophy and approach to the law. Thomas is probably the most consistent, but he's out there in some many ways and doesn't have the ability to bring together a majority opinion. And in this case he's a total consequentialist. Alito is on the other end. He has not judicial philosophy he just tries to rationalize the outcome he wants. For those reasons, I don't thing either are 'good' justices.

Gorsuch wrote a great opinion here. He and Kagan are writing the best opinions this term. All worth the reading.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Your fair vs. 'tremendous chaos' observation is one of the things that bugs me about this case. Thomas is usually the 'let the cards fall where they may, consequences be damned' justice. But here he sides with the 'well Congress must have intended to disestablish the reservation' dissent that's entirely driven by fear of the consequences. I've followed this term very closely and I'm more convinced than ever that 99% of the time the justices' votes are driven more by desired outcomes then by a consistent legal framework.

I totally get and appreciate that there are legitimate ways to get to opposing views. However, I do expect a justice to be consistent in their philosophy and approach to the law. Thomas is probably the most consistent, but he's out there in some many ways and doesn't have the ability to bring together a majority opinion. And in this case he's a total consequentialist. Alito is on the other end. He has not judicial philosophy he just tries to rationalize the outcome he wants. For those reasons, I don't thing either are 'good' justices.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered about this very question. At all levels, our judicial system considers the outcomes of their decision do you agree? Question is why do they do this? The alternative sounds like it could be pejorative to the nation over time, or at least one could think of past cases where it would be. Perhaps they think that this is the lesser evil and ensures a better future.

As an aside I think this will increase the number of violent confrontations as people wrongly believe they are immune from prosecution because of this judgement, and others/victims will be more ready to retaliate or seek revenge for such transgressions. Maybe that needs to happen for .gov to establish formally a model that can equitably represent status quo and compensate those entitled to based on previous agreements.
.
 
There hasn't been a 2A thread for 2021. I understand that there are apparently a number of 2A cases that are bubbling up to scotus right now. Any way to find out what's bubbling up?
 
VetteGirlMA said:
There hasn't been a 2A thread for 2021. I understand that there are apparently a number of 2A cases that are bubbling up to scotus right now. Any way to find out what's bubbling up?
Click to expand...
There needs to be a list, actually two. One would be active cases heading towards Supreme Court. Then another for those that were heading that way, but are all done. Actually, a third, to include those that might potentially go that way. A lot of overlap in places like New York make it confusing.
 
Coyote33 said:
There needs to be a list, actually two. One would be active cases heading towards Supreme Court. Then another for those that were heading that way, but are all done. Actually, a third, to include those that might potentially go that way. A lot of overlap in places like New York make it confusing.
Click to expand...

I know there are a number of 2A cases that are up for review. Let's hope that scotus doesn't do the old punting game. But I would at least like to know.
 
Check out this LA Times article:

www.latimes.com

Op-Ed: Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it's hearing Wednesday?

A rare occurrence on the Supreme Court's docket shows that some of the conservative justices may be searching for middle ground on gun control.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Their argument, anti-2A of course, is that SCOTUS re-wrote the question (that passed Writ) in order to perpetuate "may-issue" carry. They made a distinction between concealed vs open carry. I read it to mean that SCOTUS will focus on open vs concealed carry, rather than may issue vs shall issue permitting
 
From that LA Times article:
"the original cert petition presented this question: ā€œWhether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.ā€

To gun rights activists, the answer is an obvious no because all law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry a gun in public, regardless of whether they have a special need. And if the conservative justices had strongly agreed, the petition would probably have been quickly accepted as written.

But thatā€™s not what happened. As the courtā€™s docket shows, the justices first discussed the cert petition at a private conference in March, before debating it again at two additional conferences in April. In each conference, however, the conservative justices failed to produce the four votes needed to grant review."

Wait, I thought the amendments put restrictions on the government. Huh?
 
BigGreen2000 said:
Check out this LA Times article:

www.latimes.com

Op-Ed: Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it's hearing Wednesday?

A rare occurrence on the Supreme Court's docket shows that some of the conservative justices may be searching for middle ground on gun control.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

Their argument, anti-2A of course, is that SCOTUS re-wrote the question (that passed Writ) in order to perpetuate "may-issue" carry. They made a distinction between concealed vs open carry. I read it to mean that SCOTUS will focus on open vs concealed carry, rather than may issue vs shall issue permitting
Click to expand...
The LA Times is wrong. It's not that unusual for SCOTUS to modify the QP when granting cert. I follow enough court watching academics to know this happens several times each term.

For years, cities across the country have limited who may carry a gun in public. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether these limits violate the 2nd Amendment. The effect could be staggering ā€” the difference between a few hundred guns and hundreds of thousands of guns on the streets of Los Angeles, New York City or Washington.
Click to expand...
I consistently see not only the press, but also the aforementioned scholars, overstate the significance of this case in terms of its consequences. Sure, it will undoubtedly be a milestone decision, but in the short-term it only effects a small handful of states. The vast majority of law abiding adults in the US already have the ability to carry a handgun in public.

The aforementioned scholars as well as the media are lumping NYSRPA and the abortion cases into this term's 'block-buster' cases. Yet it is only the latter that holds the potential for serious negative consequences for large numbers of Americans. Overturning CA2 in NYSRPA is NOT going to result in negative repercussions for large numbers of people. It's a big change in the law, no one is going to get screwed (except some anti-gun folks getting butt hurt).
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The LA Times is wrong. It's not that unusual for SCOTUS to modify the QP when granting cert. I follow enough court watching academics to know this happens several times each term.


I consistently see not only the press, but also the aforementioned scholars, overstate the significance of this case in terms of its consequences. Sure, it will undoubtedly be a milestone decision, but in the short-term it only effects a small handful of states. The vast majority of law abiding adults in the US already have the ability to carry a handgun in public.

The aforementioned scholars as well as the media are lumping NYSRPA and the abortion cases into this term's 'block-buster' cases. Yet it is only the latter that holds the potential for serious negative consequences for large numbers of Americans. Overturning CA2 in NYSRPA is NOT going to result in negative repercussions for large numbers of people. It's a big change in the law, no one is going to get screwed (except some anti-gun folks getting butt hurt).
Click to expand...

Do you think if thr question was better petitioned it would have less likely to be altered? IIRC Alan Gura was very focused with Heller and they kept it as is.... I guess what I'm getting at is there could have potentially been a third way that would have worked better for us? Or do you think the end result would have been the same question?
 
drgrant said:
Do you think if thr question was better petitioned it would have less likely to be altered? IIRC Alan Gura was very focused with Heller and they kept it as is.... I guess what I'm getting at is there could have potentially been a third way that would have worked better for us? Or do you think the end result would have been the same question?
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea why the justices altered the QP. I do think it's a better, more targeted question. The granted QP is a narrow one about the petitioners. The QP on the petition is very general and much broader. They can get to the same place, but at least they're starting with the actual injury suffered by the petitioners.

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
vs.
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I honestly have no idea why the justices altered the QP. I do think it's a better, more targeted question. The granted QP is a narrow one about the petitioners. The QP on the petition is very general and much broader. They can get to the same place, but at least they're starting with the actual injury suffered by the petitioners.

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.
vs.
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
The fist would result in a ruling that could be applied to any state, the second would allow them to craft a ruling that only applies to the one person.
 
42! said:
The fist would result in a ruling that could be applied to any state, the second would allow them to craft a ruling that only applies to the one person.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, but mostly no.

The problem with the petitioner's QP is that it's too general and even the respondent agrees that the right extends outside the home. They just think that under a state's police power, the just cause requirement is constitutional. (try not to laugh).

The granted QP allows the court to say, "Yes, the petitioners' rights were violated because......"

SCOTUS does not want to get into the weeds on this. Even after NY is going to have to change how they grant carry licenses, every other state like MA, HI, MD, CA, etc. will have to work similary cases through the courts in order to get to the same place. The circuit courts will either fall in line, or SCOTUS will eventually GVR an on-point challenge in each circuit.
 
robjax said:
So before I freak out way too much because I donā€™t really know anything about medieval history I have just one questionā€¦..Why the eff are they looking into English law from the 1300ā€™s?

www.yahoo.com

Supreme Court looks to medieval England in gun rights case

The court's originalists look to history to determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the right to 'keep and bear arms.'
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Hey a week and a half ago, I was bummed out that
Adam Baldwin and the Baldwins from Massapequa
have some common ancestor in like 1500s England.

It's a short hike from there.
 
robjax said:
So before I freak out way too much because I donā€™t really know anything about medieval history I have just one questionā€¦..Why the eff are they looking into English law from the 1300ā€™s?

www.yahoo.com

Supreme Court looks to medieval England in gun rights case

The court's originalists look to history to determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the right to 'keep and bear arms.'
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
English Common Law was the basis for American law. Blackstone, and all that.

Except... those wanting to claim there's no RKBA "becuz ENGLAND!", didn't really do their homework on that law and how it was working in England before America was even a thing.
 
From that LA Times article: "some of the courtā€™s conservative justices may have tipped their hand. What theyā€™ve revealed is a fact-sensitive approach to the case that should give gun safety proponents reason for cautious optimism."

They try to make it that those who want gun rights don't want gun safety. Nobody is against safety.
 
KBCraig said:
English Common Law was the basis for American law. Blackstone, and all that.

Except... those wanting to claim there's no RKBA "becuz ENGLAND!", didn't really do their homework on that law and how it was working in England before America was even a thing.
Click to expand...
I thought the reason for the Revolution and the Amendments was to protect us from the bad parts of those old ways.
 
Coyote33 said:
From that LA Times article: "some of the courtā€™s conservative justices may have tipped their hand. What theyā€™ve revealed is a fact-sensitive approach to the case that should give gun safety proponents reason for cautious optimism."

They try to make it that those who want gun rights don't want gun safety. Nobody is against safety.
Click to expand...

I am.

Let Darwin, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and their friends loose. About the only thing that could save this country.
 

Similar threads

Worman v. Baker (MA AWB) Oral Arguments 1-9-2019
22 23 24
Replies
706
Views
95K
M125X
M125X
2014 Supreme Court Term
Replies
15
Views
9K
terraformer
terraformer
Comm2A Sends C&D to Boston for failure to adhere to Federal Court Ruling
Replies
23
Views
11K
terraformer
terraformer
Hightower Hearing in front of the First Circuit Court Of Appeals June 6, 2012
2
Replies
53
Views
26K
terraformer
terraformer
Back
Top Bottom