Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

renoskier

Gorsuch sides with the Libs again

Recommended Posts

Another interesting "Native American" case.

This one from Wyoming. Hey Pokes and hunters, are any of you guys, and @Broncomare, familiar with this case?

This article doesn't go into enough detail. Why did the conservatives vote against this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Another interesting "Native American" case.

This one from Wyoming. Hey Pokes and hunters, are any of you guys, and @Broncomare, familiar with this case?

This article doesn't go into enough detail. Why did the conservative vote against this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

The state of Wyoming is managing deer and elk herds among other things.  They sell tags to harvest a number of animals that will keep the herds healthy.  The forests healthy and provide as much recreation as possible.

Now they will have a group of people that can kill animals in any quantity they want, in any area's they want.   There goes your management plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The state of Wyoming is managing deer and elk herds among other things.  They sell tags to harvest a number of animals that will keep the herds healthy.  The forests healthy and provide as much recreation as possible.

Now they will have a group of people that can kill animals in any quantity they want, in any area's they want.   There goes your management plan.

Yeah, I don't disagree but I don't think that would have been part of any Constitutional legal argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, renoskier said:

Yeah, I don't disagree but I don't think that would have been part of any Constitutional legal argument.

You asked why Wyoming conservatives wanted to fight the treaty.  I just answered the question you asked.

 It wasn't a constitutional question anyway it was a treaty validity question.  The United States until about 15 years ago was ignoring all these 100+ year old treaties and treating them as invalid.  Gorsuch and others have rightly pointed out they aren't invalid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Another interesting "Native American" case.

This one from Wyoming. Hey Pokes and hunters, are any of you guys, and @Broncomare, familiar with this case?

This article doesn't go into enough detail. Why did the conservative vote against this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf

Here's the whole opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The state of Wyoming is managing deer and elk herds among other things.  They sell tags to harvest a number of animals that will keep the herds healthy.  The forests healthy and provide as much recreation as possible.

Now they will have a group of people that can kill animals in any quantity they want, in any area's they want.   There goes your management plan.

The reason he was hunting off the res was because there is no big game left on the res. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You asked why Wyoming conservatives wanted to fight the treaty.  I just answered the question you asked.

 It wasn't a constitutional question anyway it was a treaty validity question.  The United States until about 15 years ago was ignoring all these 100+ year old treaties and treating them as invalid.  Gorsuch and others have rightly pointed out they aren't invalid.

 

No I didn't. I asked why the conservative judges dissented.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

The reason he was hunting off the res was because there is no big game left on the res. 

Wrong. The elk was on the reservation and the hunters followed it from Montana into the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Another interesting "Native American" case.

This one from Wyoming. Hey Pokes and hunters, are any of you guys, and @Broncomare, familiar with this case?

This article doesn't go into enough detail. Why did the conservatives vote against this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

 

26 minutes ago, renoskier said:

No I didn't. I asked why the conservative judges dissented.

 

That is what you actually asked.

My answer stands as correct.

47 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The state of Wyoming is managing deer and elk herds among other things.  They sell tags to harvest a number of animals that will keep the herds healthy.  The forests healthy and provide as much recreation as possible.

Now they will have a group of people that can kill animals in any quantity they want, in any area's they want.   There goes your management plan.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Wrong. The elk was on the reservation and the hunters followed it from Montana into the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.

How was i wrong?   So it was killed off the res.    Im sure there is a token amount of wild game near the boundarys, but ever notice there are no deer or antelope there?  Have you visited?   

Even tho the range is very healthy...there are no deer to be seen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

I asked why the conservative judges dissented.

Alito is saying the treaty doesn't matter - because of a state court ruling.  Basically a State's rights vs. the Federal Government's treaty.

Quote

In seeking review in this Court, Herrera framed this case as implicating only a question of treaty interpretation. But unless the state court was wrong in holding that Herrera is bound by the judgment in Repsis, there is no reason to reach the treaty-interpretation question. For this reason, I would begin with the question of issue preclusion, and because I believe that Herrera is bound by the adverse decision on that issue in Repsis, I would not reach the treaty-interpretation issue.

-in Judge Alito's dissent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Alito is saying the treaty doesn't matter - because of a state court ruling.  Basically a State's rights vs. the Federal Government's treaty.

-in Judge Alito's dissent

But why wouldn't federal supremacy over state laws apply in enforcing a treaty made by the federal government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, renoskier said:

Another interesting "Native American" case.

This one from Wyoming. Hey Pokes and hunters, are any of you guys, and @Broncomare, familiar with this case?

This article doesn't go into enough detail. Why did the conservatives vote against this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/724987193/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-native-american-rights-in-wyoming-hunting-case

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/conservative-scotus-justices-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-disagreed-on-three-decisions-in-one-day/

 

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

He’s just setting all you lefties up for a huge disappointment and shock when the Roe v Wade overturn vote takes place.

If I had to guess I don’t think Gorsuch will vote to overturn Roe.  I know you’re being sarcastic here but I can’t see Roe getting overturned even with a conservative SCOTUS.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mugtang said:

If I had to guess I don’t think Gorsuch will vote to overturn Roe.  I know you’re being sarcastic here but I can’t see Roe getting overturned even with a conservative SCOTUS.  

I don’t see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh voting to overturn.  Overturning Roe v Wade isn’t even remotely on the radar but sure plays the role of boogeyman for the left.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I don’t see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh voting to overturn.  Overturning Roe v Wade isn’t even remotely on the radar but sure plays the role of boogeyman for the left.

Plus, if they overturned Roe what would Republicans fundraise about?  It’s all political gamesmanship. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 9:03 AM, NorCalCoug said:

I don’t see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh voting to overturn.  Overturning Roe v Wade isn’t even remotely on the radar but sure plays the role of boogeyman for the left.

I for sure don't see Roberts voting to overturn.

I would be shocked if they took a case that could overturn it.  I doubt they could get 4 justices to agree to take the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...