Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case


 

Another disappointing ruling by our changed latest Supreme Gorsuch. One can only imagine where this will lead in other Indian cases if the USA is bound to treaties written centuries ago. Better yet, apparently the issue had been ruled on before. So much for “settled Law.” Even better, wait until we have to give back much of the Southwest to Mexico.

 

The four dissenting justices said the majority was ignoring a clear precedent — a similar case in 1895 involving the same treaty language and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

 

Wyoming can’t abrogate an 1868 treaty with the Crow Tribe just because it was signed before Wyoming officially became a state, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case breathing new life into American Indian-U.S. relations.

The ruling contradicts a century-old high court precedent and could guarantee American Indians’ hunting rights on some federal lands.

“Indian Portraits” by miracc is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The case was brought by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe, whom Wyoming charged with offseason hunting in 2014 after state officials discovered him and other tribe members hunting bull elk on the Big Horn National Forest, discarding the bodies and taking the heads for trophies.

Mr. Herrera argued he was permitted to hunt on the land, citing the treaty that guaranteed American Indians “the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon.”

Crow leaders signed the treaty in 1868, handing over roughly 30 million acres to settlers while retaining about 8 million acres.

Lower courts agreed, but the justices, in a 5-4 ruling, sided with Mr. Herrera on Monday, saying the treaty is good law. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sided with the court’s four Democratic appointed justices.

Read more

 

Thanks WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

Advertisements

29 Responses to “Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case”

  1. ice cream media Says:

    Maybe it’s the lifetime terms that makes these people judge on whims and feelings and reject the discipline their supporters expected.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Supreme Gorsuch sides with the left in latest ruling, Ginsburg sides with Consevatives | BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! Says:

    […] Supreme Gorsuch sides with the left in a decision handed down yesterday. This after his decision a week or so ago Supreme Gorsuch sides with Liberals again on Indian hunting case […]

    Like

  3. Alan C Says:

    I don’t see how this is a liberal issue. Our Founding Fathers included treaties in the Constitution and they have the force of federal law. Just like other parts of the Constitution, treaties don’t have an expiration date even if they’re inconvenient or “written centuries ago.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      As long as your property title remains free and clear and no cloud develop as did in Maine for years.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      The US government has never treated native Americans fairly, but it has never treated any other group fairly either, so all we can really say is that government is consistently unt

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mustang Says:

        Oops … untrustworthy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Before its over, we will give the SW back to Mexico….. funny, we are such a nasty hateful country lets give it all away. Come one, come all. Reparations to all decendants of the cave man. Frankly I am sick of it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        P.S. IF Spain had won the west, they would have killed them all as they did in South America. Maybe it would have solved the problem of “rights.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mustang Says:

        @ Bunks

        You’re right, of course. The focus of the Reconquista movement is to reclaim the southwestern US, alleging that the US stole it from Mexico. Forget that there was a treaty arrangement following the Mexican-American war.

        We are witness today to millions illegal aliens from Mexico pouring into the United States. None of these illegal aliens are checked in any way. They live in the United States while swearing their allegiance to Mexico. By their sheer presence and numbers, those in the Reconquista movement believe that a time will come when they can take political control of local communities where Hispanics are the majority. The ultimate dream of the Reconquista movement is that political control can be gained in one or more southwestern states. Reconquista activists plan that the states controlled by Mexican immigrants would secede from the United States and join Mexico, much as the southern states seceded during the American Civil War and formed the Confederacy. This is not as silly as it sounds, and I’ll add that the strategy is the same as being employed in heavily populated Islamist regions of the country: Michigan and Minnesota come to mind.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Steve Dennis Says:

    So much for the conservative majority in SCOTUS! What a disappointment SCOTUS has become.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. John beargrass Says:

    Aha the “noble” red man killing elk for a trophy and leaving the meat to rot on the ground. Most reservation Indians do not score very high on my list.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Laura B Mielcarek Says:

    From what I understand — and I understand only a little of this sitch — the decision was ‘correct.’ Or as correct as it can be. The treaty wasn’t with Wyoming so Wyoming has no say.

    I disagree with the entire thing on a different level — the feds can’t own land except for purposes listed in the Constitution. National parks and conservation aren’t listed in the Constitution.

    When Wyoming became a state a new treaty should have been arranged with the Crow Tribe because the land was no longer under the authority of the feds but the state of Wyoming.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mustang Says:

      There is no law in the US more complex than Indian Law. In Indian law, states have no authority over legally recognized tribal entities. I think (not sure) that Indian tribes are regarded as sovereign states. It goes downhill from there. At least, that’s my understanding.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Linda Says:

        100% correct. smiles

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        And the battle will go on regarding claims made against land titles.Its not about hunting and complicated treaties on their lands. It is what they will lay claim in the future.Period full stop. End of story.. Tuck this away for future reference.

        Like

      • Alan C Says:

        Recognized tribes are sovereign entities, at least when it suits the federal government. As the husband/father of Chickasaw citizens – all of whom btw are strong Trump supporters like myself – I find sweet karma in the fact that we took the Indians from their homelands and put them on the shittiest land possible, but oil was found on some of it and they are raking in dough from casinos and cigarette stores and using it to better the lives of their citizens.

        Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Alan, I totally agree after spending many months out West. If there was any worse places for the reservations, I did not see it.
        My issue is how far this will be taken. Then many large portions of States will need to be returned to Native Americans. if we are to adhere to the letter of the treaties.Looks great on paper… let’s see how this goes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Laura B Mielcarek Says:

        Ah, yes, of course, Mustang, you are correct. The Indian tribes were considered sovereign states and as such our states are barred by the Constitution from entering into treaties with foreign states. My error.

        The issue then is much more complicated. According to the Constitution, the feds can only own land for specific purposes — parks aren’t authorized by the Constitution. So, the ‘federal’ land really became ‘state’ land when Wyoming became a state and the feds should have Constitutionally relinquished their authority over the land and the treaty with the Crow tribe, unfortunately, became void.

        There can be no treaty regarding federal land when there is no federal land within the state. This is what the Constitution says — the feds are authorized to own land only for very specific and limited purposes. Parks aren’t in the Constitution.

        Guess it was easier than I thought. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

  7. the unit Says:

    So I can or cannot hunt Indians on federal lands anymore. 🙂
    BTW, the Brits want to ban fox hunting in Britain.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Too funny, Unit.

      In Britain, “protected” foxes have overpopulated regions of the country, and there is now a problem with so-called “urban foxes” which create a mess inside the towns and cities (and some danger if they are rabid). A problem also exists among farmers who loose livestock to hungry foxes. The loss of even one sheep is quite costly to the farmer/rancher. Now as it turns out, some Brits completely ignore the ban and hunt them anyway. The problem in England is not so much the hunting of foxes, it is the method used to hunt them. There’s no shooting the animals with shotguns (as one might expect). Rather, the Brits sick their hunting dogs on the foxes, and they are literally torn apart. Pretty horrendous if you ask me.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Linda Says:

    In this case, I agree…studied this case and delved into for my Native American History class–there is more than what the news is reporting.

    Liked by 3 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: