Supreme Court and Oklahoma

[boji]

Am I dreaming?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5d-mHEdL0

Edit: (To keep it politically balanced)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52oz1ViizV4

 

[ruffrecords]

Interesting. It raises some rarely mentioned fundamental issues. it may be a storm in a tea cup but, given the way the world and the USA in particular is right now, it may be a lot more serious.

Cheers

Ian

 

[boji]

Right?! What does it mean? Will Trump (over)step in response?

I worry it will be used to further drive a wedge, ie "A vote for Biden Is a vote for dissolution of The Union" or some such other reasoning.

 

[midwayfair]

That channel's stated purpose is to convince people to vote Republican. In other words, it's literally and intentionally propaganda, so regardless of the content of the video I'm not exactly inclined to watch it. Maybe find a better and less partisan source that just reports the news.

Here's an AP story link (from Oklahoma Public Broadcasting): https://www.opb.org/news/article/oklahoma-tribal-land-supreme-court-ruling-jurisdiction/

 

[cyrano]

That about sums it up, Ian.

It's unfinished paperwork from 1866. Should judges ignore it, just because it's old? Or because it's inconvenient? That would be an entirely new perspective in legislature, wouldn't it?

 

[boji]

it's literally and intentionally propaganda

Not really, it's too soon for that. More speculation through threat discovery.  I did post a more left-leaning perspective after the fact in attempt to invite discussion.

 

[scott2000]

That's awesome....

 

[emrr]

Without looking at that, they said Congress hadn't finished the job, the reservation had never been undone by the creation of the state.  Congress will have to act in some manner.  Pretty interesting. 

 

[midwayfair]

Not really, it's too soon for that.

I'm talking about the YouTube channel that video is on, not the content of the video. Read the description under the video.

Edit: Also, looking at the basic arguments presented without even hitting play, they are vastly overstating what the case means based on reading the decision summary. "SCOTUS Gave Away Half of Oklahoma" -- really Cruz?! All the case decides is which U.S. court system some criminal cases are tried in until Congress fixes the oversight. FFS people need to calm down.

 

[boji]

I'm talking about the YouTube channel that video is on, not the content of the video. Read the description under the video.

Let everyone know to take issue with the messenger, then to chill. Got it.

 

[living sounds]

Let everyone know to take issue with the messenger, then to chill. Got it.

A "messenger" is neutral (simply conveying someone elses message). This appears not to be the case here.

 

[midwayfair]

Let everyone know to take issue with the messenger, then to chill. Got it.

I suggested that picking a messenger -- of which there are many -- who are not literal propaganda would be better for discussion of the topic.

Notice how instead of discussing the content, there are posts about the source of the content? That's what happens when you choose to link to literal propaganda for your discussion jump-off point. Every source has biases, but the difference between literal propaganda and a news source is that a news source will usually make an attempt to avoid its biases and not explicitly call for a voting pattern based on the facts (and opinions) exposed in their piece.

In any case, that video is clearly not what most people should think of as a "messenger." They have a stated goal in their presentation of steering you toward a particular voting pattern. As they are making an argument toward an explicit political outcome, they are, by definition, propaganda. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that they are going to present the full and complete facts or that they would fairly and accurately depict the Plaintiff's case arguments. I also don't trust them, based solely on the thumbnail and the description under the video, to accurately describe the legal ramifications of the ruling, because based purely on that information they have already, as I said, grossly misrepresented that to elicit an alarmed response from their viewers. Glancing at the comments, it appears they succeeded in their goal, which makes them good propaganda but not a good source for discussion.

 

[boji]

Dear Midwayfair,

Since it has become obvious there's a need to hear more about your personal political tastes than discuss the merits of a video that has so little value it needn't be watched, what other ways can I correct methods of inquiry? Apologies for misunderstanding what a messinger is, by the way.  Are their any other content creators I should avoid to improve the monologue going forward? I would not want to pass off information as evidence of opinion that lies outside your own;  that form of linguistic bullying warrants someone stepping in to undo the thread if you ask me.

 

[Brian Roth]

I will begin with a bit of info on my backstory.  I was born, raised, and lived in Oklahoma until I relocated to Kansas six years ago.  I was initially barely aware of the injustices done to Native Americans.  Little/no mention of that history was taught in school, just like the Tulsa massacre and destruction of the black community in 1921. (But that is a whole different topic!)

Rather than elaborate further, I linked a video posted by one of the guys I like to watch (a lawyer in Michigan).  He breaks down the SCOTUS case into the basics, one of which is that the ruling did NOT turn over a chunk of Okla. to the Native Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA37s9iqWYQ

Bri

 

[midwayfair]

Dear Midwayfair,

Since it has become obvious there's a need to hear more about your personal political tastes than discuss the merits of a video that has so little value it needn't be watched, what other ways can I correct methods of inquiry? Apologies for misunderstanding what a messinger is, by the way.  Are their any other content creators I should avoid to improve the monologue going forward? I would not want to pass off information as evidence of opinion that lies outside your own;  that form of linguistic bullying warrants someone stepping in to undo the thread if you ask me.

Jesus Christ, dude, I'm not attacking you personally, I suggested, pretty damn gently at first, that finding a nonpartisan source would be better for everyone in the thread.

I'm trying to be apolitical about this here. How does posting a video from lefty propaganda "keep things politically balanced"? How is that good for anyone? Just post a damn news source -- or even just the text of the SCOTUS decision! You said you're concerned about people making something a wedge issue, but you've posted TWO videos that seemingly want to make it a wedge issue!

I gave my thoughts on what the decision meant: extremely little, because it essentially amounts to a change of venue for some criminal cases in Oklahoma. It doesn't actually cover land ownership or sovereignty (so even the damn TITLE of the first video is just false). There's very little to talk about here, changes of venue, while a pain in the ass sometimes, are not incredibly uncommon for criminal cases. And federal prosecutors have a 90% conviction rate, which puts them on par with the best in most local jurisdictions, so I'm pretty confident that they'll put away the plaintiff in the case for a couple hundred years for what he did.

Text of the decision:
https://d2qwohl8lx5mh1.cloudfront.net/kKj4BdK6PajTt4Q_WYZgkQ/content

The question of law is laid out in the first paragraph: Whether and how The Major Crimes Act applies to crimes committed in an area of Oklahoma whose status as a reservation was brought into question. And I know that reading a legal decision is dry to the point of making everyone's eyes bleed (believe me, I had to read plenty while I was a paralegal), so here's the SCOTUSblog summary for the case:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/opinion-analysis-justices-toe-hard-line-in-affirming-reservation-status-for-eastern-oklahoma/

 

[Brian Roth]

Just more info:

https://kfor.com/news/local/supreme-court-ruling-will-have-biggest-impact-on-criminal-case-jurisdiction/

Bri

 

[Brian Roth]

As a  sidebar, various Native American tribes have "compacts" with Okla to operate casinos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_casinos_in_Oklahoma

I am NOT complaining....just smile that the tribes are making some big bucks from gullible "pale faces".  I don't go to casinos,  but have seen pix/vids of grannies sitting between two slots, putting in tokens and pulling both handles at the same time.  Hell yes! 

I have no dog in this hunt since my ancestors are Euro, but I root for the underdog.

Bri

 

[boji]

He breaks down the SCOTUS case into the basics, one of which is that the ruling did NOT turn over a chunk of Okla. to the Native Americans.

Appreciate everyone's links.  Pleased to read anything that refutes the op, as it looks to be available.

MWF: How it may be spun was/is the point of predictive sensemaking**, which is different than giving reasons for why it should not be. My sarcasm was nasty and regrettable, but felt necessary in the moment. Also unfairly had you standing-in for other conversations lately that keep getting derailed due to...let's just say passion. We're back on course tho, that's good. Brian is a good diffuser. Wise!  Cheers.

**In the modern political climate

 

[emrr]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-muscogee-people-suffered-for-generations-in-the-hope-of-a-better-tomorrow-its-finally-here/2020/07/14/3caf0638-c60a-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html

 

[boji]

Thanks EMRR.  The narrative of keeping promises is more powerful than the slippery slope argument.

I imagine all other state's treaties are being reviewed for interpretative abuse, and that's good.