Posted on 07/09/2020 7:12:03 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
In the olden days the land was in strips, Osages in Kansas, Cherokees in “Indian Country”, Creeks and Seminoles, then Chocktaw and Chikasaw lands stretching from Arkansas to Texas. A few small tribes in NE OK.
Then, because they joined the Confederacy, lost most of the Western portions in the Civil War, leaving Western OK as “Unassigned Lands” which were later given to various tribes. The reservations jumped around, so bad it was hard to find who owned what.
The Cheyenne and Arapaho were given the lands South of Kansas, West of the Arkansas river, East and North of the Cimarron River. So what were they doing at the Washita in 1868? They were given the Washita several years later when Custer hit them after they had been raiding in Kansas that summer but not in 1868.
Other tribes were later moved in. The Pawnee requested to move to Oklahoma after the Sioux massacred them at Massacre Canyon in 1873.
Some land were setting on pools of OIL.
And lets not forget that Spain and France “owned” it for a while before the US acquired it.
Please get a grip. And read the case.
My grip is fine. I’m not in the business of justifying collusion with America hating progressive Democrats. Apparently, you are.
Well... it was called “Indian Territory” when the Cherokee and others were force marched there.
No, I read the case and read what the law says. Try it once in awhile.
I talked with the mayor of a small Cherokee town not far from here. He said that the Corona virus caused the schools to be closed down, now they are using internet to teach, and Every Student now has a computer, supplied by the state, and they are upgrading their internet services.
The Navajos could only dream of such a windfall.
I am acquainted with various tribal members at Grove and Jay.
Roberts:. “McGirt was sentenced to 1,000 years
plus life in prison. Today, the
Court holds that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute
McGirt—on the improbable ground that, unbeknownst to
anyone for the past century, a huge swathe of Oklahoma is
actually a Creek Indian reservation, on which the State
may not prosecute serious crimes committed by Indians like
McGirt. Not only does the Court discover a Creek reserva-
tion that spans three million acres and includes most of the
city of Tulsa, but the Court’s reasoning portends that there
are four more such reservations in Oklahoma. The redis-
covered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of
the State—19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million peo-
ple, only 10%–15% of whom are Indians.
Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute se-
rious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions
could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has pro-
foundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma.
The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the
State’s continuing authority over any area that touches In-
dian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation “
No, I read the case and read what the law says. Try it once in awhile.
The law? Since when did progressive Democrats care what the law said? If you are standing with Democrats like Kagan and RBG you are in the wrong spot. Sorry.
Years ago I heard that every citizen of OK is part Am Indian.
Yes, Creek Reservation not officially disestablished by Congress and so remains for purposes of at the Major Crimes Act. This applies to almost the entire eastern half of the state. It remains to be seen whether this decision will be used as a wedge in broarder issues involving disputes between the state and Indians, maybe even who has title to lands lived on by non-Indians.
SCOTUS ruling against the tribes is unheard of ... they always rule for them and have said so in many cases.
As far as Treaties are concerned SCOTUS threw out upholding them for the non-Indian in the 1970s. If there is an angle that is favorable to the Tribes then, that becomes the law.
If you think that’s unfair, you are correct. But it is Constitutional, since the Tribes are directly mentioned in the Constitution and you me the other guy are NOT mentioned by name. We are just “the people” an amorphous mass that has no real Rights, just privileges which can be revoked at any given time - Oklahoma’s were just revoked.
FYI, that one is constantly defending justices that join the Leftist bloc.
This is the dumbest post on the whole thread. And thats saying something. So no matter what Kagan, Ginsburg, etc. vote, “our side” should instinctively take the other side. Uh huh.
Good thing we have two Trump appointees on the court! Imagine how bad it would be if they were democrat appointees.
When, ever, has one liberal ever crossed over in defiance of other liberals, when ever?
Re: 26 - Read the whole opinion.
Good grief.
It’s simply the law.
When Congress denied Sequoyah statehood and passed the Organic Act granting statehood to “Oklahoma”, they failed to revoke the status of Indian Territory that would have become the State of Sequoyah.
Since that status is from a treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, and since it has not been repudiated, it, along with the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land and binds all states and courts.
Decision was correct.
“ a treaty signed by Bill Clinton guaranteeing sovereignty to the Ukraine must be ignored”
Was that so-called “treaty” ratified by the Senate? Of course not.
An unratified treaty is no treaty at all.
They feel that they have no choice but maintain the legal fiction of Indian sovereignty. Personally, I wish we could get past it, but the court is extraordinarily good at maintaining legal fictions, like the line they feed us about Americans being a free people.
Roberts is convincing. His 37 pages begins on page 46.
Indians took their slaves and signed treaty to fight for Confederacy. That started the process of ending their reservation
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.